Decision of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, 5th Civil Division, dated 28th September 2022

Written by

  1. Claims of group members shall be based on the same legal basis if they derive from the issuance of the same normative acts and from the same omissions of the defendant.
  2. In order to establish the membership of a member in a group, probability is sufficient.
  3. Group proceedings, in which the demand for the “determination of liability” of the defendant is formulated, have the character of a special autonomous proceeding. The autonomy of this proceeding is determined primarily by the separate legal regime of the group proceeding, as well as its purpose and legal functions, as it is intended to conclude with a decision that constitutes a specific prejudication for the resolution of future disputes involving a group of persons in the relevant individual court proceedings or as a result of the conclusion of appropriate settlements between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
  4. In group proceedings individual circumstances of each group member are not examined, as these will be evaluated in possible subsequent individual trials. The issuance of a determining judgment in these proceedings concerning a large group of people is aimed only at determining the defendant’s liability for a specific event. If, on the other hand, there are individual proceedings in which the verdict issued under Article 2 Section 3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings will be a prejudgment, it is only in these proceedings that the individual circumstances will be examined.
  5. An action to establish the liability of the defendant in a case for a monetary claim arising out of a tort constituting a single event (Article 2 Section 3 in conjunction with Article 1 Sections 1 and 2 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings) is also permissible in group proceedings when the premise of the occurrence of the damage and its amount depends on the individual factual circumstances of the individual members of the group.
  6. The diversity of individual factual circumstances peculiar to individual group members (i.e., related to the occurrence of the damage itself, the exact mechanism of its occurrence and its magnitude) cannot constitute a reason for refusing to hear a lawsuit in group proceedings.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw, 5th Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:                     Bogdan Świerczakowski, Judge of the Court of Appeal

having examined on 28th September 2022 in Warsaw at a session in camera the case brought by (…) Club LLC LP with its registered office in W. against the State Treasury – the Prime Minister, the State Treasury – the Minister of Health, the State Treasury – the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration

as a result of the respondent’s complaint against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw dated 16th May 2022, ref. no. II C 225/21,

decides to:

  1. dismiss the complaint;
  2. leave the decision on the costs of the complaint proceedings to the court of first instance in the decision concluding the proceedings.

Decision of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, 6th Civil Division, dated 16th November 2022

Written by

  1. In cases heard in group proceedings there is applicable Article 15zzs1 Section 1 Point 4 of the Act of 2nd March 2020 on Special Arrangements Related to the Prevention, Counteracting and Combating COVID-19, Other Infectious Diseases and Emergencies Caused by Them during the period of the state of epidemic emergency or the state of epidemic declared due to COVID-19 and within one year after the last one is revoked, according to which in cases heard in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Act in the first and second instance, the court shall hear cases with a single judge; the president of the court may order that a case be heard by a panel of three judges if he deems it advisable due to the particular complexity or precedent-setting nature of the case. Pursuant to Article 24 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, the provisions of the Act – Code of Civil Procedure shall apply accordingly to the extent not regulated by the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. At the same time, in accordance with Article 3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, group proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the regional court, and the court shall hear cases in a panel of three professional judges. In such a case, the determination of the composition comes from a provision of a separate act, but cases of this type are recognized under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. This argues in favor of their cognizance in a single-member composition.
  2. The fact that the court did not interview the parties before issuing a ruling on the hearing the case in group proceedings does constitute a procedural defect, but not so serious as to justify a declaration that the proceedings are invalid (in particular, if already at the stage of filing the lawsuit the plaintiff attached the statements of the members of the group, in which they justified in detail their membership in the group, which gave the court the opportunity to issue a ruling on the hearing the case in group proceedings).
  3. The response to the statement of claim in the group proceedings relating to the claims and evidence relied on by the plaintiff to prove the legitimacy of the claims asserted may be filed by the defendant at a later stage of the proceedings, after the court has ruled on the admissibility of the group proceedings, and before the ruling on this issue, the defendant may only comment on the admissibility of the group proceedings.
  4. In the course of the proceedings on the admissibility of group proceedings, the court shall make a formal legal assessment of the admissibility of the group proceedings. In this regard, it examines whether the prerequisites for the admissibility of group proceedings in the form of homogeneity of the claims of the members of the group, the identicality or sameness of the factual basis of the claims of the members of the group, the size of the group, the unification of monetary claims, and the subject matter capacity of the claims to be examined in group proceedings are met.
  5. The first prerequisite for the admissibility of group proceedings is that all persons covered by the group action must apply for legal protection in the same form.
  6. The second of the subjective prerequisites necessary for the initiation of group proceedings is the formation of a group of at least 10 persons. This prerequisite must be met both at the time of filing the lawsuit and at the time the court decides on the admissibility of the group proceedings.
  7. The third of the subjective prerequisites necessary for the initiation of group proceedings is the unity of the factual basis. It arises when there is a bond between the members of the group based on the unity of the event giving rise to the damage. The case law sometimes indicates that claims based on an identical factual basis are claims that have the same factual basis (premise sensu stricto) or claims whose material facts are common (premise sensu largo). Although there may be slight differences between individual bases of claims, it is essential that the material facts justify the demand common to all claims. The requirement of the same factual basis for the claims does not mean that all the facts of the case must be identical for each group member. The condition of an identical factual basis is met when the facts justifying the existence of a particular legal relationship that is the basis of the claims are the same for all group members. The same factual basis for an action occurs when obtaining legal protection involves an identical situation or event, i.e. when all claims are based on the same set of facts constituting their basis. Thus, this usually involves one and the same factual event, which is the source of many of the asserted claims. The similar factual basis is referred to when the claims are derived only from similar situations and events, which corresponds to the concept of an equal factual basis, which is an element of formal co-participation. Thus, the similar factual basis is present when different facts form the basis of the asserted claims, but these facts show similarity that makes it impossible to consider that they are analogous in nature and thus show a relationship that justifies treating them as “the same.”
  8. In the context of group proceedings for the determination of liability, the extent of damage caused to individual group members is not subject to examination. Thus, the diversity of individual factual circumstances peculiar to the members of the group remains without any effect on the fulfillment of the prerequisites for hearing a case in a group proceeding.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw, 6th Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Beata Waś, Judge of the Court of Appeal

having examined on 16th November 2022 in Warsaw at a session in camera the case brought by A. D. as a representative of a group against the State Treasury – Council of Ministers, Minister of Health, Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration for determination

as a result of the respondent’s complaint against the decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw dated 27th April 2022, ref. act XXV C 136/21,

decides to:

  1. dismiss the complaint;
  2. leave the decision on the costs of the complaint proceedings to be issued in the final judgment.

Decision of the District Court of Warsaw, 2nd Civil Division, dated 16th May 2022

Written by

  1. Claims based on an identical factual basis are claims that are based on the same factual basis (premise sensu stricto) or claims whose material facts are common (premise sensu largo). The existence of insignificant differences between individual bases of claims does not preclude the possibility of asserting claims in this procedure, but it is nevertheless necessary that material facts justify the demand common to all claims. The requirement of the same factual basis for the claims does not mean that all the facts of the case must be identical for each group member, since there will always – even in the case of the same cause of action – be individual circumstances pertaining to individual group members. The condition of an identical factual basis is met when the facts justifying the existence of the specific legal relationship that is the basis of the claims are the same for all group members. “This is not prevented by the existence of other facts that fall within the factual basis of the action, such as the nature of individual claims, their maturity or amount. The essence of group proceedings is commonality manifested in the demand, which must be typical (common) to all claims. The indicated condition means that the legal or factual situation of the members of the group must be the same, while the asserted claim must be of one type (homogeneity of claims), because only then it is possible to make a common claim.”
  2. From the purposive interpretation of Article 16 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, it follows that in cases other than those involving monetary claims, plausibility is sufficient to establish a member’s membership in the group.
  3. Since a demand for a determination of liability is not the same as a demand for an award of benefits, the court must take into account the dissimilarities between these claims and, with this in mind, assess whether the conditions for recognizing an action in group proceedings are met. If, on the other hand, the circumstances of the damage are so different that it would be inappropriate to evaluate them in a group proceeding, the likelihood that such damage occurred should then be considered sufficient.

The Regional Court in Warsaw, 2nd Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Eliza Kurkowska, Regional Court Judge (Judge-Rapporteur)

Judges:                           Katarzyna Waseńczuk, Regional Court Judge;

Sylwia Urbańska, Regional Court Judge

having examined at a hearing on 29th April 2022 in Warsaw a case brought by (…) LLC Limited Partnership with its registered office in W., as a representative of a group consisting of:

W., O. B., J. B., J. Z., (…) registered partnership with its registered office in P., M. M., A. K., (…) limited liability company with its registered office in K., (…) limited liability company with its registered office in S., Ł. G., B. G., D. T., M. C., H. K., M. N., M. O, W. W., M. R., (…) limited liability company with its registered office in W., Z. K., (…) LLC limited partnership with its registered office in W., (…) limited liability company with its registered office in L., (…) LLC limited partnership with its registered office in P.

against the State Treasury – represented by the Council of Ministers represented by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration for determination,

decides to:

  1. fix the value of the subject matter of the dispute at PLN 5,833,618 (five million eight hundred and thirty-three thousand six hundred and eighteen zlotys);
  2. set the amount of court fee for the lawsuit at PLN 100,000 (one hundred thousand zlotys);
  3. oblige the plaintiff’s attorney to pay a supplementary fee on the lawsuit in the amount of PLN 85,000 (eighty-five thousand zlotys), within seven days under pain of a ruling on the obligation to pay it in the decision ending the case in an instance;
  4. hear the case in group proceedings.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, 25th Civil Division, dated 27th April 2022

Written by

  1. In group proceedings, an action to establish the liability of the defendant in a case for a monetary claim arising from an act constituting a single event (Article 2 Section 3 in conjunction with Article 1 Sections 1 and 2) is also permissible in a situation where the premise of the occurrence of the damage and its amount depends on the individual factual circumstances of the individual members of the group. The court is of the opinion that the purpose of this stage of the proceedings was in no way to examine the legitimacy of the claim made on the grounds of the defendant’s liability for damages. Indeed, it is not permissible for the court at the stage of preliminary examination of the admissibility of the examination of the claim to refer directly to the assessment of the merits of the claim in the form of conducting evaluative considerations on the circumstances justifying the existence and type of, for example, a causal link between the plaintiffs’ damage and the defendant’s behavior.
  2. In addition, attention should be drawn to the need for a purposive interpretation of Article 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. Undoubtedly, the intention of the legislator was to make it easier (and not more difficult) for consumers, or persons who have suffered damage in connection with a dangerous product or a tort, to pursue their claims. Thus, the interpretation of the provisions of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings should be made in such a way as to facilitate the pursuit of such claims by group members.

The Regional Court in Warsaw, 25th Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:              Krystyna Stawecka, Regional Court Judge

having recognized on 27th April 2022 in Warsaw at an session in camera pursuant to Article 15zzs1 of the Act of 2nd March 2020 on Special Solutions Related to the Prevention, Counteracting and Combating of COVID-19, Other Infectious Diseases and Crisis Situations Caused by Them (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1478) in group proceedings

the case brought by A. G. (group representative) against the State Treasury – Council of Ministers, Minister of Health, Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration for determination (on the admissibility of group proceedings)

decided to:

hear the case in group proceedings.

Decision of the Regional Court in Warsaw, 20th Commercial Division, dated 27th April 2021

Written by

  1. Group proceedings have a number of significant differences from ordinary civil proceedings. First of all, the course of the proceedings, the prerequisites for the admissibility of the proceedings and the scope of civil cases that can be recognized in group proceedings, the formation of the subject party, the rules for determining the remuneration of an attorney, the specific requirements for the content of a lawsuit, as well as a number of formal differences related to the conduct of group proceedings are different. All these differences mean that it is not possible to apply directly all the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code that have not been excluded by the provision of Article 24 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings. This leads to the conclusion that also to proceedings initiated before 1st June 2017, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code should be applied accordingly.
  2. The provision of Article 24 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings has never excluded the application of Article 193 of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite its several amendments. In view of the importance of this provision, the exclusion from application of neighboring provisions, i.e., Articles 194-196 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the lack of changes in this regard when subsequent amendments were made, it should be considered that this was a conscious decision by the legislator. Nor does the application of this provision is definitively excluded by the distinctiveness of group proceedings. Therefore, it should have been assumed that, in principle, the modification of the action recognized in the group proceedings is permissible.
  3. The act does not provide for a specific procedure for resolving the issue of admissibility of the inclusion of new claims in group proceedings. As a result, the provisions relating to the claims filed in the lawsuit should be applied accordingly.

The Regional Court in Warsaw, 20th Commercial Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Katarzyna Kisiel, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                           Joanna Sieradz, Regional Court Judge;

Łukasz Oleksiuk, Regional Court Judge (Judge – Rapporteur)

having examined on 27th April 2021 in Warsaw at a hearing the case brought by (…) Limited Liability Company with its registered office in W. against (…) with its registered office in N. (C.) for the protection of copyrights and related rights in group proceedings

decides to:

hear the case with respect to the new claims submitted by the plaintiff in the letter of 23rd September 2019 in the group proceedings.

Decision of the Regional Court in Gdańsk, 1st Civil Division, dated 14th October 2019

Written by

  1. The requirement of the uniformity of the factual and legal basis of the group members’ demands is considered to be met when the group members derive their claims from the same event, i.e., from agreements concluded separately by each group member with the defendant, which contain practically identical provisions regarding the obligation.
  2. Given the identical nature of the provisions concerning contractual obligations, it is irrelevant that some of them were included in preliminary sales agreements and some in development agreements.

The Regional Court in Gdańsk, 1st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Mariusz Bartnik, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                           Ewa Karwowska, Regional Court Judge;

Monika Bakuła-Steinborn, Regional Court Judge

having examined on 14th October 2019, in Gdańsk, at a session in camera, the case brought by A. S. (1) – representative of the group consisting of [data of 172 group members] against (…) JSC with its registered office in S. for authorization to perform substitution,

decides to:

rule on the admissibility of group proceedings in the case.

Decision of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, 1st Civil Division, dated January 25, 2021

Written by

  1. When certifying a group proceeding, the court only decides on its admissibility and does not examine other issues related to the group proceeding, including whether or not individual members belong to the group. The assessment of the substantive merits of the group proceeding also falls outside the scope of the assessment of its admissibility, as this is only carried out at a later stage of the proceeding.
  2. The content of the statements attached to the statement of claim, in conjunction with the content of the statement of claim, must clearly express the will of the member of the initiative group to join the group and consent to the person of its representative bringing the action, identify the members of the group and the content and basis of the claims. It is permissible to use a reference to the statement of claim in these statements in order to indicate the claims, the circumstances justifying the claim, the circumstances justifying membership of the group, and the evidence, provided that the content of the statement of claim together with the content of the statements attached to the statement of claim enables the court to assess the admissibility of the case in group proceedings.
  3. As part of the verification procedure provided for in Article 10 Section 1 of the act concerning the group proceedings, the declaration contained in the statement of claim must be relied upon. This means that a group action may only be dismissed if the initiating party does not refer to any of the legal grounds specified in Article 1 Section 2 of the act.
  4. The term “same factual basis” should be understood as basing claims on similar events, which corresponds to the concept of a common factual basis constituting an element of formal joint participation. The claims pursued must therefore be homogeneous, i.e., of the same type and based on the common factual basis. Claims based on the common factual basis are claims based on the same factual basis (premise sensu stricto) or claims whose relevant factual circumstances are common (premise sensu largo). It is permissible that there may be slight differences between the individual bases of the claims, but it is essential that the relevant factual circumstances justify a demand common to all claims.
  5. If it is impossible to standardize the factual basis of monetary claims for all members of the group on the above basis, such standardization must take place in subgroups of at least two persons, with reference to a formal criterion of a general nature constituting the actual basis of the common cause.

The Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, 1st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding Judge:           Marek Machnij, Judge of the Court of Appeal (Judge – Rapporteur)

Judges:                            Małgorzata Idasiak-Grodzińska, Judge of the Court of Appeal;

Karolina Sarzyńska, Regional Court Judge (delegated)

having examined on 25th January 2021 in Gdańsk, at a session in camera, the case brought by (…) acting as a representative of a group against Bank (…) for payment, as a result of the defendant’s complaint against the decision of the Regional Court in Gdańsk of 17th June 2020, file ref. no. XV C 871/18,

decides to:

  • dismiss the complaint;
  • leave the decision on the costs of the complaint proceedings to the court issuing the ruling concluding the proceedings on the merits of the case.

Judgment of the District Court of Warsaw, 1st Civil Division, dated May 24, 2022

Written by

  1. Given the nature and purpose of the proceedings, which are conducted under the provisions of the Act of 17th December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, it is unnecessary to make findings beyond the facts (factual circumstances) common to all members of the group. In particular, it is superfluous to establish facts individualizing the factual and legal situation of each group member separately. Since the premise determining the effective commencement of proceedings under the said procedure is the fact that the parties in the substantive legal sense (members of the group) are pursuing claims of a single type, based on the same or similar factual basis, everything that goes beyond the indicated iunctim is not within the limits of the examination of the case set by the purpose of the cited act (its ratio legis).

The Regional Court in Warsaw, 1st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding judge:           Andrzej Kuryłek, Regional Court Judge

Judges:                          Tadeusz Bulanda, Regional Court Judge;

Agnieszka Sidor-Leszczyńska, Regional Court Judge

having recognized on 24th May 2022 in Warsaw, at a session in camera, a case brought by [data of group members] against Bank (…) JSC with its registered office in W. with the participation of the Ombudsman for determination:

  1. dismisses the claim;
  2. does not charge the plaintiff with the obligation to reimburse the defendant for the costs of the trial.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Łódź, 1st Civil Division, dated 14th April 2021

Written by

  1. The court of appeal hearing the appeal is bound by the position of the court of appeal in the complaint proceedings, within the framework of which the admissibility of hearing the case in group proceedings was examined.
  2. One cannot agree with the assertion that the legislator in the provision of Article 1 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings uses the concept of a claim in the substantive legal sense.
  3. The first stage of group proceedings (during which the filing of a lawsuit and the filing of a response to the lawsuit take place), ends with the court’s decision on the admissibility of the group proceedings – this is the so-called certification phase of group proceedings. Only after the decision on the cognizance of the case in group proceedings becomes final, the court orders the announcement of the commencement of group proceedings, which begins the second phase of these proceedings, the purpose of which is to determine the final circle of participants. Certification of group proceedings is a unique solution in Polish law, not found in ordinary civil proceedings.
  4. When deciding on the admissibility of group proceedings, the court is not limited to examining only the procedural prerequisites specific to group proceedings, but also examines whether all other “ordinary” procedural prerequisites have been met. In making a (positive) certification of a group proceeding, the court confirms the fulfillment of all ordinary (i.e., applicable to any civil proceeding) procedural prerequisites, i.e.: that the case belongs to the judicial route, the domestic jurisdiction of Polish courts, the parties’ legal capacity, the parties’ procedural capacity, as well as the due representation of a party lacking procedural capacity. At the same time, the court confirms the non-existence of any of the negative prerequisites (such as res judicata, lis pendens, the existence of an arbitration clause, or judicial immunity). The procedural prerequisites peculiar to group proceedings, the fulfillment of which the court examines when certifying a group proceeding, include: the homogeneity of the claims pursued, the minimum size of the group, the identicality or similarity of the factual basis, the nature of the case.
  5. A decision to hear a case in a group proceeding bounds the court that issued it (Article 332 § 1 in conjunction with Article 361 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The court should not be entitled to arbitrarily deviate from the content of the order it issued – otherwise the stabilizing function of the order would be negated in its entirety. This principle also applies if the second instance court has previously taken a position on the admissibility of the group proceeding, recognizing the complaint against the decision of the first instance court. The situation will be different in the case where the decision of the court of first instance to recognize the case in group proceedings has become final due to the expiration of the time limit for filing a complaint. This is because the court of second instance will then not be bound by the previously issued decision made in the course of reviewing the decision on the admissibility of group proceedings. In such a case, it should be recognized that under the current model of full appeal, the court of second instance conducts for the second time exploratory proceedings in the case, which is a continuation of the proceedings conducted in the first instance (Article 378 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in principio). Thus, the court of second instance will then be obliged, within the limits of the appeal, on its own initiative to inspect the circumstances determining the admissibility of the proceedings on the merits, unless their examination depends on the raising of an appropriate plea by a party.
  6. The necessity of pursuing a “claim of one type” in group proceedings within the meaning of Article 1 Section 1of the Act of 17th December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings means a requirement that all plaintiffs seek an adjudication of a benefit or the establishment or shaping of a legal relationship or right. A further condition for the admissibility of group proceedings under this provision is that the claim should be based on the same or similar factual basis, and that it should be a claim for consumer protection, for liability for damage caused by a dangerous product, and for tort, with the exception of claims for the protection of personal interests.
  7. The term “claim” as used in Article 1 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings has a procedural meaning. A different view would have to lead to the conclusion of the admissibility of pursuing only substantive legal claims arising from obligatory legal relationships in group proceedings (which would be in direct contradiction to at least Article 2 Section 3 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings).
  8. The first prerequisite for the admissibility of a group proceedings is that all persons covered by the group statement of claim must apply for legal protection in the same form. Thus, it is not permissible for one person to make a claim for an adjudication of a benefit (a demand for payment), and for the others to make a demand to establish the existence of a specific legal relationship (for example, to establish the existence of a contract).
  9. Doubts arise about the definition of homogeneity of claims, which determines their pursuit in group proceedings. From the point of view of the homogeneity of claims, such circumstances as: the dissimilarity of the terms of the contracts and templates linking group members with the defendant, as long as the disputed contractual clause was included in each of the contracts, do not constitute an essential element of the factual basis.
  10. Monetary claims can undoubtedly be considered to be of one type. Non-monetary claims, on the other hand, will be of one type only if they relate to the requested course of action (behavior) of the defendant, i.e. if all members of the group demand a certain action or omission (of the same type) on the part of the defendant. Undoubtedly, therefore, claims of one type would not be monetary and non-monetary claims pursued simultaneously (in a single group proceeding), or different non-monetary claims pursued simultaneously. The premise of homogeneity of claims should be understood in such a way that the demands arising from them are common to all members of the group. The action must therefore include a demand for legal protection in the same way for all group members.
  11. The issue of the factual relationship between the claims must take into account how it is understood on the basis of the institution of substantial joint participation and formal joint participation, in light of Article 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  12. The fact that individual claims for damages will require an examination of the individual factual circumstances peculiar to individual group members is irrelevant to the assessment of the prerequisite of identicality or homogeneity of the claim, as provided for in Article 1 Section 1 of the Act on Group Proceedings. Group proceedings are also permissible when the prerequisite of the occurrence of damage and its amount depends on individual factual circumstances pertaining to individual group members.
  13. An action to establish the liability of the defendant in a case for a monetary claim arising from a tort constituting a single event is also permissible in group proceedings when the prerequisite for the occurrence of damages and their amount depends on individual factual circumstances concerning individual members of the group. It is also permissible in a group proceedings to establish the liability of the defendant under a “complex tort”.
  14. It is intended that an action under Article 2 Section 3 of this act is to be brought when the monetary claims of group members are not suitable for unification in amount. The judgment establishing the defendant’s liability is intended to serve as a prejudgment for any payment proceedings brought individually by group members after the conclusion of the group proceedings.
  15. In proceedings to determine the defendant’s liability for damages, the court of merit does not examine the extent and amount of damages. Allegations concerning the receipt by group members of compensation for the property damage suffered are examined in the course of compensation proceedings that follow the proceedings to establish liability for damages.
  16. The subject matter of group proceedings when demanding the determination of the defendant’s liability are only the circumstances common to all members of the group. In contrast, it is not a matter of establishing individual circumstances affecting only individual group members. Therefore, it is not necessary to establish or prejudge that the same damage occurred to each member of the group if the circumstances of the damage are so diverse that it would be inappropriate to evaluate them in a group proceeding. It is sufficient to recognize the occurrence of a damage to the extent that it is possible and expedient to do so in a group proceeding. The examination of individual prerequisites such as the nature of the damage, the amount of the damage, the causal relationship to the designated property, the contribution of the injured party will be the subject of examination in individual proceedings.

The Court of Appeal in Łódź, 1st Civil Division, composed of:

Presiding judge:            Małgorzata Stanek, Judge of the Court of Appeal (Judge – Rapporteur)

Judges:                           Dorota Ochalska-Gola, Judge of the Court of Appeal;

Joanna Walentkiewicz-Witkowska, Judge of the Court of Appeal

having recognized on 17th March 2021 in Łódź, at a hearing, a case brought by W. S. as a representative of a group in group proceedings, consisting of: [data of 28 group members] against the State Treasury – Mazovian Voivode, the State Water Management Company Polish Waters, the Mazovian Voivodeship, the Płock District for determination

as a result of the appeal of the respondents the State Treasury – Mazovian Voivode, the State Water Management Company Polish Waters and the Mazovian Voivodeship against the judgment of the Regional Court in Płock dated 23rd April 2018, ref. no. I C 863/12

as well as the plaintiff’s complaint against the decision on costs of the proceedings contained in paragraph 4 of the said judgment

  1. from the complaint of the plaintiff W. B. S. amends the appealed decision in such a way that it reduces the amount of PLN 44,217 to PLN 21,617 (twenty-one thousand six hundred and seventeen);
  2. dismisses the defendants’ appeals;
  3. awards the amount of PLN 18,750 (eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifty) jointly and severally to the plaintiff W. S. from the defendants the State Treasury – Mazovian Voivode, the State Water Management Company Polish Waters and the Mazovian Voivodship as reimbursement of the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, dated 12th April 2023

Written by

  1. In the case of proceedings initiated prior to the date of entry into force of the Act of 7th April 2017 on the Amendments to Certain Acts to Facilitate Debt Recovery – the validity of the decisions to hear the case in group proceedings does not preclude the Supreme Court from reviewing whether the claims sought can actually be pursued in these proceedings; such review is not prevented by Article 10a of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings – as this regulation took effect on 1st June 2017, and pursuant to Article 13 of the Act of 7th April 2017 on the Amendments on Certain Acts to Facilitate Debt Recovery, it applies to proceedings initiated from the date of entry into force of the said Act.
  2. The homogeneity of the claims pursued in group proceedings and their reliance on the same or similar factual basis is evidenced by the very content of the demand and the concurrence or identicality of the facts indicated in support of it; Article 1 Section 1 of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings refers to a procedural claim, not a claim under substantive law.

The Supreme Court in the Civil Chamber, composed of:

Presiding judge:             Małgorzata Manowska, First President of the Supreme Court

Judges:                            Beata Janiszewska, Supreme Court Judge (Judge – Rapporteur);

Robert Stefanicki, Supreme Court Judge

having recognized at a session in camera on 12th April 2023 in Warsaw, the appeal in cassation of the Mazovian Voivodeship against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Łódź, 1st Civil Division, dated 14th April 2021, I ACa 1099/18, in a case brought by W. S. as a representative of a group in group proceedings, consisting of: [data of 28 group members] against the State Treasury – Mazovian Voivode, the State Water Management Company Polish Waters and the Mazovian Voivodeship for determination,

  1. dismisses the appeal in cassation,
  2. awards from the Mazovian Voivodship in favor of W. S. as the representative of the group in the group proceedings the amount of 5,400 (five thousand four hundred) as reimbursement of the costs of the cassation proceedings.