Decision of the Regional Court in Wrocław 1st Civil Division of 21st December 2016

Written by

  1. The declaration on joining the group is a declaration of intent. The lack of the date on the document does not affect the validity and credibility of the declaration on joining the group.
  2. The presence of non-significant dissimilarities between individual factual bases of claims of particular group members does not preclude recognition of the claims as based on the same factual basis.

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

Adam Maciński, Regional Court Judge

Krzysztof Rudnicki, Regional Court Judge

Anna Stańczyk, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 7th December 2016 in Wrocław at the hearing the case filed by D. D. acting as a group representative against  Bank (…) S.A. with its registered office in W. for payment,

hereby decides to:

examine the case in group proceedings.

The judgements of the Regional Court in Wroclaw published on the website were facilitated by the President of the Regional Court in Wroclaw in the letter of 27th August 2019. The texts of the judgements were processed by the entity operating this website by adding theses, deleting data of group members, visual compilation and removing punctuation and literal errors. The rulings have been translated by the entity operating this website.

The authority obliged to provide public sector information is not responsible for its processing, further sharing and use.

Decision of the Regional Court in Łódź 1st Civil Division of 19th December 2016

Written by

  1. The case may be examined in group proceedings if the following premises are fulfilled: at least 10 people pursuing one homogenous claim based on the same or similar factual basis and alternative inclusion of the object of the proceedings within the following categories: claims for the protection of consumers or claims for damage caused by hazardous products or claims for damage caused by a tort, save for claims for the protection of personal rights (Article 1 of Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings).
  2. ’The same‘ factual basis of pursued claims exists when factual circumstances are identical and a legal protection is sought by participants of one event, thus a bond based on the unity of the damage-causing event occurs. Similar‘ (equal) factual basis means the similarity of particular established facts.
  3. The essence of group proceedings is the commonality of demand which must be typical (common) for all claims and is based on the identical factual situation of the group members. non-significant dissimilarities may exist among individual grounds of the claims , but the significant factual circumstances should substantiate a demand which is common for all claims.
  4. The literal wording of the provision indicates that for ascertaining the admissibility of the group proceedings it is sufficient if at least 10 people pursue homogenous claims based on the same factual basis. Whereas, ascertaining whether all persons who submitted declarations on joining the group may be its members – is the next stage of group proceedings, which pursuant to Article 17 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings ends with a decision on the group composition.
  5. The term ’claim’ within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings (unlike Article 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings) means the demand of the statement of claims. In consequence, the group proceedings are not limited only to action for performance.
  6. The important dissimilarity between filing an action for establishment of liability under Article 189 CCP and an action under Article 2.3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings ’for establishment of the defendant’s liability‘ is that the claimant is obligated to prove the legal interest if he pursues the claim under Article 189 CCP.
  7. The defendant who files a motion for obligating the claimant to make a deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings, should make plausible, firstly, that the pursued claims against him is obviously unfounded or that the acceptance of the statement of claims is unlikely, therefore has the characteristics of litigiousness. Secondly, the defendant should make plausible that the lack of the deposit to secure the future claim for reimbursement of costs of the proceedings will make an execution of the costs from the opposite party impossible or significantly more difficult.

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

Katarzyna Kamińska-Krawczyk, Regional Court Judge

Marzena Kluba, Regional Court Judge

Anna Jóźwiak, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 19th December 2016 in Łódź at the hearing the group action filed by the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman in W. against (…) with its registered office in W. for establishment of the defendant’s liability,

concerning: the admissibility of the group proceedings and defendant’s application to obligate the claimant to pay a deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings,

decides to:

  1. examine the case in group proceedings;
  2. dismiss the defendant’s motion to obligate the claimant to pay the deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 25th Civil Division of 15th December 2016

Written by

Non-final decision.

  1. Admissibility of a legal course depends on the factual circumstances provided by claimant as a basis of the claim. It is not contingent upon the demonstration of the existence of the claim. Neither is it dependent on the defendant’s charges or the defence method selected thereby. Court proceedings should prove whether the assertions presented in the statement of claims find a legal basis in provisions of substantive law. The court assesses only the admissibility of group proceedings i.e. the circumstances which substantiate examination of the case in group proceedings.
  2. A factual basis of the claims in group proceedings should be understood as the set of facts which substantiate Claimant’s claims in group proceedings. Claims may be based on the same or equal factual basis. Such claims should result from the same event or from similar events. When the same set of facts is the basis of rights and the parties to the proceedings are bound thereby, such a situation should be deemed as the same factual basis. In turn a set of analogical facts in the scope of a specific claim should be deemed as the equal factual basis.

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

Presiding Judge: Anna Pogorzelska, Regional Court Judge

Judges: Krystyna Stawecka, Regional Court Judge; Anna Ogińska-Łagiewka District Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on the 15th December 2016 at the hearing in Warsaw, the case filed by the Consumer Ombudsman against (…) joint stock company with the registered office in Warsaw, for payment,

decides to:

reject the statement of claims in group proceedings.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 3rd Civil Division dated 5th December 2016

Written by

The Regional Court in Warsaw 3rd Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Joanna Kruczkowska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Joanna Bitner, Regional Court Judge, Grzegorz Chmiel, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 5th December 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by K.K. as the representative of the group against the Housing Association (…) in W. for the payment of PLN 1,700,667.19 regarding the Claimant’s motion of 10th November 2016 to complete or rectify the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw in the present case dated 28th October 2016

hereby decides to:

  1. rectify the obvious inaccuracy in the decision of 28th October 2016 by putting (…) into point no. 1 subgroup I., 3rd position, and designate the remaining members of the group with numbers accordingly;
  2. discontinue the proceedings regarding the Claimant’s motion of 10th November 2016 for completing or rectifying the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw dated 28th October 2016.

Order of the Presiding Judge of the Regional Court in Warsaw 16th Commercial Division of 18th November 2016

Written by

Announcement on the commencement of group proceedings

Pursuant to the Polish Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, group proceedings were opened before the Regional Court, to the statement of claims of (…) Ltd in W. against (…) joint-stock company in W., file ref. no. XVI GC 352/15. (…) Ltd, as the representative of the group, for damages with statutory interest for each of the group members. The claimant indicated that she represented a group composed of insurance agents who pursue their claims arisen from the defendant’s activity being an advertising campaign conducted in 2008 which breached rules of fair competition by means of discouraging clients from using the services of insurance agents.

In the judgment dated 8th January 2010 (file ref. no. XVI GC 554/08), the Regional Court in Warsaw concluded that these commercials infringe upon the rules of fair competition and thus imposed a ban on broadcasting them. The claimant claimed that as a result of the advertising campaign many insurance agents suffered damages because of a drastic decrease in clients’ interest, this being the reason of loss of profits.

Each person whose claim can be included in the class action, can join the group by submitting a written declaration within 2 months of  the publishing of this announcement – to the representative of the group – (…) Ltd in W., address for service: (…)

Joining the group after the given date is inadmissible.

Submitting such a declaration is equivalent to granting consent to (…) Ltd acting as the representative of the group and to the rules of the representative’s remuneration, which is 20 % of the total amount awarded from (…) joint-stock company to (…) Ltd in a judgment or in a settlement.

A legally valid judgment is binding on all the group members, meaning all the persons who submitted a declaration on joining the group before the deadline and thus were indicated in the court’s decision on establishing the group’s composition.

Maria Zgiet – Zawadzka, Regional Court Judge

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 20th Commercial Division of 17th November 2016

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 17th November 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera, the case filed by (…) limited liability company in W., against FS F. (…) in N. (Cyprus) for the protection of copyrights and related rights in group proceedings, following the claimant’s motion for an injunction,

hereby decides to:

dismiss the motion.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 2nd Civil Division of 9th November 2016

Written by

The Regional Court in Warsaw 2nd Civil Division with the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:            Marcin Polakowski, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                            Sylwia Urbańska, Regional Court Judge

Katarzyna Waseńczuk, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 9th November 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing in camera the case filed by the Consumer Ombudsman in the City Hall of S., acting as a group representative of the group consisting of [data of 31 group members] against (…) S.A. in W. for declaration,

following the defendant’s motion to reject the statement of claims within the scope of the extension indicated in the letter of 5th June 2016,

decides to:

refuse to reject the extension of the statement of claims regarding the new claim lodged by the letter of 5th June 2016.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 3rd Civil Division of 4th November 2016

Written by

The decision was corrected by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Warsaw 6th Civil Division of 6th December 2017, VI ACz 1357/17

  1. The condition of the identical factual basis is met when the facts substantiating the existence of the legal relationship, which is the basis of the claims, are equal for all group members. The essence of the group proceedings is the commonality manifest in the demand which must be typical (common) for all claims.
  2. In the court’s opinion, during the examination of the premise of the same factual basis of the claims, the circumstances which have significance for the final ruling, not any circumstances which appear under contracts, should be taken into account.
  3. Article 2 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings explicitly refers to standardization of the amount of claims, not to standardization of claim value calculation rules. The standardization of a claim involves each member of the group, therefore the consent thereto should be expressed by all group members. The standardization of the claims should be carried out done on the grounds of common circumstances of the case, i.e. the same for all group members and simultaneously different from these which determined the separation of other groups.
  4. Rendering a decision on examination of the case in group proceedings is not a directional judgment, which somewhat – in the case of finding the procedure advisable –automatically cause the necessity to render a judgment in favor of the Claimant. Before the final ruling, in the group proceedings, the court is obligated to reassess the preliminary issues, examined at the previous stages of the proceedings, which decide on the admissibility and form of judgment. Therefore, it is obvious that the reassessment includes all premises of the admissibility of group proceedings (number of members in the group, homogeneity of claims, the same or similar factual basis and the legal classification of claims). The judgment on the merits may be issued only after conclusion that the premises of admissibility are met.
  5. Rendering a decision on the admissibility of group proceedings, pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, does not preclude a later ascertainment of inadmissibility of the proceedings at each stage thereof, what results in an amendment of the decision (pursuant to Article 359 CCP) and rejection of the statement of claims.
  6. The optionality of the deposit in group proceedings does not mean discretion. The court shall consider all circumstances of the case in respect to advisability of application of this institution.
  7. The defendant, who files a motion for deposit, should make plausible, firstly, that the action against him is obviously unfounded or the statement of claims is unlikely to be allowed, therefore it has the characteristics of litigiousness. Secondly, the defendant should make plausible that the lack of the deposit to secure the future claim for reimbursement of costs of the proceedings will make an execution of the cost from the opposite party impossible or significantly more difficult.

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

Agnieszka Rafałko, Regional Court Judge

Ewa Jończyk, Regional Court Judge

Mariusz Solka, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 5th January 2016 in Warsaw at the hearing the class action filed by the Municipal Consumer Ombudsman in S. against V. L. Association (…) S.A. V. (…) with its registered office in W. for payment,

decides to:

  1. examine the case in the group proceedings;
  2. dismiss the defendant’s motion to obligate the claimant to pay the deposit to secure the costs of the proceedings.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 3rd Civil Division of 28th October 2016

Written by

The following text of the decision is amended by the rectification of 5th December 2016.

The decision has been rectified by the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw 3rd Civil Division of 5th December 2016, III C 56/15.

The Regional Court in Warsaw 3rd Civil Division in the following ruling bench:

Presiding Judge:  Joanna Kruczkowska, Regional Court Judge

Judges:  Joanna Bitner (rapporteur), Regional Court Judge, Grzegorz Chmiel, Regional Court Judge

having examined at a hearing in camera on 28th October 2016 in Warsaw the case filed by K.K., the representative of the group, against the Housing Association (…) for the payment of the amount of PLN 1,700,667.19

hereby decides to:

determine that this action shall be prosecuted in group proceedings whereas the group represented by K.K. consists of:

1)    subgroup no. I: [3 group members],

2)    subgroup no. II: [4 group members],

3)    subgroup no. III: [9 group members],

4)    subgroup no. IV: [2 group members],

5)    subgroup no. V: [5 group members],

6)    subgroup no. VI: [2 group members],

7)    subgroup no. VII: [5 group members],

8)    subgroup no. VIII: [2 group members],

9)    subgroup no. IX: [2 group members],

10)  subgroup no. X: [3 group members],

11)  subgroup no. XI: [2 group members].

Decision of the Regional Court in Gdansk 1st Civil Division dated 28th October 2016

Written by

  1. The case on the protection of consumers appears in Article 61 § 1 CCP that determines the scope of activity of non-governmental organisations. According to Article 221 CC, a consumer is a natural person who performs acts in law which are not directly connected with his economic or professional activity. The aim of the activity which has no business aspect, is fundamental.
  2. The status of a given person as a consumer shall be appraised at the moment of performing the act in law. The subsequent changes in the purpose of the acquired good or service shall not lead to the change of a once adopted establishment.
  3. The fact of acquiring the real estate in which the business activity was subsequently led does not mean that the given person was not a consumer on the date of concluding the contract. As well, the fact that the given person runs a business or professional activity in the scope of granting a credit does not mean that he was not a consumer at the moment of concluding the contract with a bank concerning him personally.
  4. The fact that the part of the Members of the Group signed the appendix to the contract does not exclude the possibility of declaring the primary version of the contract null and void. However, the issue of the existence of the legal interest in demanding such a declaration shall be assessed.
  5. Claims based on an equal factual basis are claims based on the same factual basis (a sensu stricte prerequisite) or claims having common essential factual circumstances (a sensu largo prerequisite). That means that the prerequisite of the equal or the same factual basis means that the identical circumstances do not have to be the factual basis of the claim, but the significant similarity of them is sufficient. As a result, the factual basis does not have to be equal but at least the same.
  6. The slight differences may exist between the individual factual basis of respective claims, nevertheless it is indispensable that the essential factual circumstances remain common for all of the claims. Such circumstances common for all of the claims are contracts concluded by the members of the group (…) containing abusive clauses, introducing the identical mechanism based on the bank’s discretion in determining the level of indebtedness of the borrower, that leads, according to the plaintiff, to the invalidity of those contracts.
  7. The legal proceedings of the court regarding the examination of the admissibility of the class action are specific pre-litigation proceedings. The Court decides about the admissibility of the class action only on the basis of assessment of the lawsuit, because it makes a formal-legal appraisal on the admissibility of those proceedings. The Court is not entitled to examine the substantive prerequisites of the claim.