Judgment of the Regional Court in Warsaw 2nd Civil Division of 23th April 2018

Written by

  1. The charge of limitation raised against some of the members of the group should be resolved in potential future individual proceedings.
  2. The type of possession is therefore determined primarily by the extent of actual power over the item and whether it takes place with the express or implied consent of another person. An autonomous possession may be established where the de facto power over an item has the general characteristics facilitating the establishment of possession and, moreover, consists in the use of the item with the exclusion of other persons and is independent of the express or implied consent of another person, in particular, independent of the owner’s consent.
  3. Litigation against the State Treasury means that where multiple claims are filed, in relation to different organizational units, if even one of them is allowed, in practice, it means winning the trial in its entirety. Such a judgment, once it has become final, acquires the character of an enforcement title, on the basis of which the creditor can satisfy themselves to the same extent as if the claim had been allowed in respect of each of the statio fisci.

Judgement of the Regional Court in Płock 1st Civil Division of 23rd April 2018

Written by

  1. In the Court’s opinion, the requirement to comply with the “principle of sustainable development” concerns both of the indicated issues, i.e. ensures: safety and environmental protection. The social benefits achieved in each of these fields must be at least proportional, socially adequate to the losses incurred while ensuring indicated goals.
  2. The incorrectness of exercising public authority may consist of violations of constitutional rights and freedoms, constitutional rules of public authority operations, requirements set forth in statutes, executive acts (breaches of substantive and procedural law), as well as violations of non-legislative rules connected in different ways with legislative rules. The object of the public authority’s tort may be solely the violation of particular provisions ordering (or prohibiting) specific acts from being performed in a given situation, but not the violation of general aims of broadly understood criminal proceedings, directives and postulates.
  3. In the Court’s opinion, flood protection, ensured among others through the system of prohibitions and orders stipulated in the Water Law, constitutes an imperative interference with individual rights, i.e. it is a form of the exercising public authority, the main element of which is the inequality of the parties. On the other hand, the duties belonging to the so-called dominium area, are only those whose purpose is the use of property by the state while participating in ordinary civil law transactions.

 

The Regional Court in Płock 1st Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding judge:         Agnieszka Bilkiewicz, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                        Joanna Szatkowska, Regional Court Judge, Marta Dunajska, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 9th April 2018 in Płock at the hearing the group action filed by W. S. (1) acting as a representative of the group consisting of [data of 28 group members] against the State Treasury – Voivode (…), State (…), the (…) Voivodeship and the P. Poviat, for the establishment of the defendants’ liability,

decides to

  1. establish the joint and several liability of the State Treasury – Voivode (…), (…) and (…) Voivodeship for damage caused to group members consisting of: [data of 28 group members], resulting from tort of an illegal act committed by the defendants while exercising public authority in scope of flood protection in the area of the defendants’ jurisdiction, which led to the breaking of the flood bank located along the left bank of the W. river, k.m. W. 611, in the town of the Ś., S. commune, P. Poviat, (…) Voivodeship, on 23rd May 2010, and then two floodings of the area located on the left side of the W. river, in the area of D. I. – D. in May and June 2010;
  2. dismiss the action against the P. Poviat
  3. determine the court fee for the action for establishment at PLN 5,000;
  4. order the claimant W. S. (1) to pay the amount of PLN 44,217 (forty four thousand two hundred and seventeen zlotys) to the benefit of defendant the P. Poviat as reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings;
  5. order the defendants: the State Treasury – Voivode (…), State (…) and the (…) Voivodeship to jointly and severally pay the amount of PLN 53,883 (fifty three thousand eight hundred and eighty three zlotys) to the benefit of the claimant W. S. (1) as reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings;
  6. order the defendants: the State Treasury – Voivode (…), State (…) and the (…) Voivodeship to jointly and severally pay the amount of PLN 52,912.75 (fifty two thousand nine hundred and twelve zlotys seventy five groszy) to the benefit of the State Treasury – Regional Court in Płock as reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings.

Judgment of the Regional Court in Gdańsk 15st Civil Division of 26th March 2018

Written by

The justification of this judgment has not been prepared.

The Regional Court in Gdańsk 15st Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding judge:            Urszula Malak, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Dorota Kołodziej, Regional Court Judge

Krzysztof Solecki, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 12th March 2018 in Gdańsk at the hearing, the case filled by (…) a representative of the group against (…) for the declaration and payment,

decides to:

  1. declare the Usenet service provision agreements concluded between subgroup no. 1 members indicated below [data of 48 group members] and the defendants who conduct business activity as a general partnership in Sopot to be null and void and declares that the defendants must jointly and severally pay the amount of PLN 94.80 [ninety four PLN 80/100] to each subgroup no. 1 member as the return of undue payment;
  2. declare the Usenet service provision agreements concluded between subgroup no. 3 members indicated below [data of 59 group members] and the defendants who conduct business activity as a general partnership with registered office in Sopot to be null and void;
  3. declare the Usenet service provision agreements concluded between subgroup no. 5 members indicated below [data of 482 group members] and the defendants who conduct business activity as a general partnership with its registered office in Sopot to be null and void;
  4. charge the costs of the proceedings to the defendants, leaving the final calculation thereof to the court clerk.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division of 15th March 2018

Written by

The Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Anna Błażejczyk, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                             Tomasz Gal, Regional Court Judge

 Agnieszka Wlekły-Pietrzak, District Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 15th March 2018 in Warsaw at the hearing the case in group proceedings filed by the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman in City Hall S. (the group representative) against (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment

decides to:

  1. discontinue the proceedings,
  2. charge the unpaid court costs in the amount of PLN 31,764.38 (thirty one thousand seven hundred four PLN and 38/100) to (…) joint stock company with its registered office in W.

 

Judgement of the Regional Court in Warsaw 1st Civil Division of 14th February 2018

Written by

  1. Social security is a function and duty of the State, and the Constitution of the Republic of Poland says nothing about the possibility (or lack of) the partial privatisation of this function. The issue of health care or education is similar. It is undisputed that OFE (Open Pension Funds) are a private legal way of performing the State’s constitutional task, similarly to private hospitals and universities, and this possibility was not questioned by the Constitutional Court. I C 599/14.
  2. (…) redemption of accounting units and their transfer to the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) are not legal acts towards which establishing their validity pursuant to Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure is possible. Regardless of the doctrine definition of the term “legal act”, it is commonly assumed that the necessary part of any legal act, and at the same time exclusively defining it, is the declaration of will. Meanwhile, both the redemption of accounting units and the transfer of their equivalent to the Social Insurance Fund (FUS) does not contain a declaration of will, but constitutes a technical act in the performance of an instruction of a statutory provision which cannot be subject to control – in the scope of Article 58 § 1 of the Civil Code – by way of a claim provided for in Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure (judgment of the Supreme Court of 19th January 2012, IV CSK 217/11). Article 58 of the Civil Code refers only to legal actions (or declarations of intent), but does not apply to events that are not legal actions. Therefore, it is not possible to determine, by way of a claim based on Article 189 of the Civil Code of Civil Procedure, the invalidity of technical actions.

 

The Regional Court in Warsaw 1st Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge: Rafał Wagner, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Ewa Ligoń-Krawczyk, Regional Court Judge, Bożena Chłopecka, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 1st February 2018 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera, the case filed by P.K. – the group representative, consisting of : K. A., T. A., E. B., J. B., R. C., J. F., I. G., D. G., K. G., M. G., G. J., P. J., W. K., A. K., M. K., T. K., J. K., M. Ż. (1), G. M., M. M., T. M., J. N., J. O., K. O., M. O., P. P. (1), A. P., P. P. (2), J. P., M. P., J. R., R. R., E. S., S. S., A. S., A. S., K. S., M. S., J. T., I. T., P. W., I. W., M. W., J. W. (1), S. W., J. W. (2), A. W., J. W. (3), J. Z. (1), G. Z., J. Z. (2), M. Ż. (2) [52 persons] against the State Treasury – Minister for Labour and Social Policy, Social Insurance Institution (ZUS), (…) a joint stock company with its registered office in W., (…) a joint stock company with its registered office in W., (…) a joint stock company with its registered office in W., (…) a joint stock company with its registered office in W., (…) a joint stock company with its registered office in W, (…) a joint-stock company with its registered office in W., (…) a joint-stock company with its registered office in W., (…) a joint stock company with its registered office in W., for a determination,

hereby decides to:

  1. dismiss the claim;
  2. waives the obligation to charge the claimant with the costs incurred by the defendants in the proceeding.

Decision of the Regional Court in Gdańsk 1st Civil Division of 12th February 2018

Written by

The Regional Court in Gdańsk 1st Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Karolina Sarzyńska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Małgorzata Janicka, Regional Court Judge

Ewa Karwowska, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 12th February 2018 in Gdańsk at the hearing in camera the case filed by the District Consumer Ombudsman in Szczecinek acting as a group representative against B. Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in Warsaw for establishment of the defendant’s liability, alternatively, for the shaping of a legal relationship,

hereby decides to:

order the publication of the announcement on the commencement of group proceedings in the press, by addressing the publisher of the Rzeczpospoilita daily with a request for publication of the announcement with the following content:

“Group proceedings have been initiated before the Regional Court in Gdańsk 1st Civil Division, under the Act of 17 December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings (Journal of Laws of 2010, No. 7, item 44) by the District Consumer Ombudsman in Szczecinek against Bank (…) Spółka Akcyjna with its registered office in Gdańsk for the establishment of the defendant’s liability, alternatively, for the shaping of a legal relationship, file ref. no. I C 245/15.

The District Consumer Ombudsman in Szczecinek as a group representative requested the court to determine the non-existence or the invalidity of the contractual legal relations resulting from the credit agreements (…).

(…)

Alternatively, the claimant requested the court to determine that the group members are not bound by the credit agreements (…).

(…)

Each person whose claim may be included within the present statement of claims may join the case by filing a written declaration on joining the group within the deadline of three months as of the date of publication of this announcement and by sending the declaration to the group representative – District Consumer Ombudsman in Szczecinek, address for service: (…) Kancelaria Prawna sp. j. ul. (…). The statement template is available at: www.law24.pl.

After the lapse of the abovementioned deadline, joining the group will not be admissible.

(…)”.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 24th Civil Division of 1st February 2018

Written by

  1. The necessity to pursue ‘one type of claim’ in group proceedings means that all group members are required to seek damages or the establishment or shaping of a legal relationship or law. However, this does not mean that it is not admissible to submit more than one claim in group proceedings. Group members may submit different types of claims, provided that all of these claims are sought by all group members.
  2. The fact that the basic circumstances making up the factual basis of the claim are the same for a sufficient number of persons is sufficient for the implementation of group proceedings. The convergence of all circumstances constituting a factual basis of individual group members’ claims is not absolutely necessary.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 24th Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Katarzyna Bojańczyk, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                             Paweł Pyzio, Regional Court Judge

 Agnieszka Bedyńska-Abramczyk, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 1st February 2018 in Warsaw at the open hearing the case filed by Municipal Consumer Ombudsman of the Capital City of Warsaw against (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment and establishment of the defendant’s liability,

hereby decides to:

examine the case in group proceedings.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division of 30th January 2018

Written by

  1. If only one of the potential demands pursued in group proceedings is common for 10 group members, the whole statement of claims may be examined under the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings.
  2. In group proceedings, the statement of claims is regarded as a complete whole and it is not possible for the statement of claims to be rejected towards certain group members and at the same time not be rejected towards the others. The group representative acts on their own behalf (Article 4.3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings) and they merely have the right to stand in the proceedings – the group representative is the only a claimant. It is not possible to reject the statement of claims filed by individuals who are not claimants.
  3. All changes concerning the demand of the statement of claims connected with the limitation of the claim require the consent of more than half of the group members (Article 19.1 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings). That is why, the order to correct formal defects cannot aim to withdraw a part of the suit or limit the claim. Such transformations of the suit cannot be required in the form of the order to correct formal defects.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Anna Błażejczyk, Regional Court Judge (rapporteur)

Judges:                            Dorota Kalata, Regional Court Judge

Monika Włodarczyk, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 30th January 2018 in Warsaw at the hearing in the group proceedings the case filed by District Consumer Ombudsman in P. against (…) Bank S.A. in W. for payment, alternatively for the establishment of the defendant’s liability, and the case filed by the District Consumer Ombudsman in P. against (…) Bank S.A. in W. for the establishment of the defendant’s liability, alternatively for shaping of the legal relation,

hereby decides to:

examine the cases in group proceedings.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 20th Commercial Division of 26th January 2018

Written by

The Regional Court in Warsaw 20th Commercial Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:                   Maciej Kruszyński, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 26th January 2018 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera, the case filed by (…) sp. z o.o. in W., against (…) (…) in N. (Cyprus) for the protection of copyrights and related rights in group proceedings

hereby decides to:

  1. establish that (…) sp. z o.o. w W., (…) Wydawnictwo (…). (…) sp. z o.o. sp.k. in G., Wydawnictwa (….) S.A. in W., (…) sp. z o.o. in K., Wydawnictwo (…) sp. z o.o. in G., Wydawnictwo (…) sp. z o.o. in W., (…) sp. z o.o. in W.., (…) sp. z o.o. in W., (…) sp. z o.o. in P., Wydawnictwo (…) sp. z o.o. in P., Wydawnictwo (…) A. in W., (…) sp. z o.o. in W. are members of the group in the group proceedings;
  2. establish that (…) S.A. in W., Wydawnictwo (…) Sp. z o.o. in W. are not members of the group in the group proceedings.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division of 26th January 2018

Written by

  1. The criteria of group membership are in each case determined by the decision on examining the case in group proceedings.
  2. Charges aimed at demonstrating that a particular person does not fulfil the group membership requirements of participation in the group may be based on: a charge of the lack of the same or equal factual basis of the claim as the claims indicated in the decision on examining the case in group proceedings; the charge that the particular group member’s claim is not homogenous with the claims indicated in the decision on examining the case in the group proceedings; the charge that the amount of pecuniary claim is not standardized with the amount of the other group or subgroup members’ claims; the charge that standardization of the particular group or subgroup member’s claim is not justified by joint circumstances; or a charge that the particular group member’s claim, contrary to the other group members’ claims, does not fall within the objective scope of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. The allegations may be also based on a failure to comply with the procedural requirements for joining the group.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Krystyna Stawecka, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Anna Błażejczyk, Regional Court Judge

Tomasz Gal, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 26th January 2018 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by J. K. (1) – group representative against Bank (…) S.A. in W. for payment,

hereby decides to:

  1. resume the stayed proceedings with the participation of a new group representative K. P.;
  2. establish the composition of the group, divided into subgroups, which consist in the following persons:

– subgroup 1: [2 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 2: [4 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 3: [3 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 4 : [4 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 5: [3 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 6: [3 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 7: [5 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 8: [2 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 9: [3 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 10: [3 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 11: [3 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 12: [5 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 13: [4 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 14: [5 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 15: [3 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 16: [3 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 17: [2 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 18: [2 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 19: [4 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 20: [6 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 21: [3 persons] (PLN (…));

– subgroup 22: [2 persons] (PLN (…)).