Class action

• Autorzy: Rafał Kasprzyk

Warianty tytułu

Class Action

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Doba współczesna, opanowana przez rozwój cywilizacji technicznej, charakteryzuje się masowością występujących zjawisk w stosunkach społecznych. Cecha ta pojawia się w najrozmaitszych postaciach w różnych dziedzinach życia. Znajduje to także swoje odzwierciedlenie w kształtowaniu się pewnych instytucji procesu cywilnego. Coraz bardziej wzrasta liczba spraw cywilnych, których wynikiem bardziej jest zainteresowana pewna grupa społeczna niż poszczególna jednostka. W sprawach dotyczących ochrony środowiska czy też ochrony konsumenta, wynik indywidualnie wszczętej sprawy może zadowolić całą klasę osób dotkniętych szkodliwym oddziaływaniem albo nielegalnymi praktykami rynkowymi. Wyłania się jednak tutaj także kwestia legitymacji i interesu prawnego w dochodzeniu takich roszczeń. W sprawach dotyczących np. prewencyjnych roszczeń o ochronę konsumenta legitymacja i interes prawny indywidualnej osoby może być kwestionowany, gdyż na pierwsze miejsce w takich sprawach wysuwa się interes grupowy, a nie indywidualny. Współczesne prawodawstwa w dwojaki sposób rozstrzygają te problemy. Pierwszy charakterystyczny jest dla europejskich systemów kontynentalnych, drugi został stworzony przez system common law, zwłaszcza prawodawstwo amerykańskie. (fragment tekstu)

EN

In contemporary society, the number of cases in which numerous parties are interested in the results of one law suit is rapidly increasing. In cases conserning environmental and consumer protection, against different kinds of discrimination the plaintill seeks a relief satisfying a social group rather than an exclusive person. In continental Europe, the most significant role in protection of collective and diffuse interests is played by the trade unions and private organisations entitled by express statutory provisions, to bring and defend actions not only in their own interest but also in the interest of their members and strangers. There is no general principle of case and controversy requirement for social organisations. Legislative provisions have granted power to a considerable number of associations to bring collective actions, but standing is limited to definite cases. The European solution may be called a system of representative parties. It does not grant possibility of bringing suit for unincorporated associations and unorganised social groups. The registered organisations, furnished by statute with interest to sue, monopolize the standing and remedies. Different and numerous interests, which ought to be taken into consideration by the court, cannot be efficiently formulated during the litigation. There is no procedural mechanism of responsibility of the organisation to its members and represented strangers. The most troublesome inconvenience of this system is the impossibility to assert damages by the organisation on behalf of the whole injured class of persons. From the theoretical point of view, a statute may provide the organisation with such power, but the problem of res iudicata, calculation and distribution of damages would have to be resolved. The American law does not limit the standing of social organisations by detailed statutory provisions. The courts examine the interest to sue on the basis of general principles and they are very liberal. Environmental law and Freedom of Information Act provide a limited form of actio popularis - citizen's action. This manner of protection of collective and diffuse interests is completed by the class action. The class action is a kind of joinder in civil procedure. One or more members of a class (similarily situated persons) may sue or be sued as representative parties, on behalf of all, without prior consent of them. According to rule 23 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class action may be brought if four general preroquisits are satisfied: 1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable; 2) there are questions of fact or law common to the class; 3) claims or defences of the representative must be typical for all other members of the class; and 4) representative party will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The rule contains detailed provisions on the orders which the court may make, in order to direct the conduct of the action, especially tor the protection of absent class members. Adequacy of representation and protection of absentees appears to be central to class action jurisprudence. Class action is the procedural solution opposing to actio popularis. It is rather a common action of all entitled persons. Protection of collective and diffuse interests through class action may by called a system of representative proceedings. Class suits open courts to claims not ordinarily litigated, especially to small claims in the realm of consumer protection. They enable the courts to see the full implications of recognising the rights or remedies Class action proceduros assist the courts in judging precisely what outcoraes of litigation would best serve the policies underlying the causes of action. The courts are more likely to see both significance of the claims of a plaintiff and the consequences of imposing liability upon a defendant, and thus are more likely to arrive at a substantively just conclusion. Through class action procedures, moreover, the interests of absentees, who may be affected by the litigation regardless of its nature, are given representation in the litigative process, and thus moro likely to be given their duo. The class action, in such form as it has been shaped in the United States, is an element of the legal consciousness characteristic for a traditionally pluralistic society. There are only practical obstacles to contract class action in continental legal systems. From the European point of view, the most attractive is the theory of Professor Chayes, who estimates that a class is to be treated for staisding purposes as a jural entity, and that the class as a whole is the relevant actor, and that the case or controversy requirement is to be analysed in terms of the status of the legal issues in dispute between the class and the class opponent. In this formulation, the class action would be a general clause providing a standing for groups of persons unincorporated in relation to common questions of fact and law. The class action is compatible with the theory of relative unlawfulness, which maintains that the civil liability arises if the defendant infringes a rule of law intended for protection of some class of persons, and if the plaintiff is a member of this class, there is no civil liability (compensative or injunctive) if the defendant infringes a rule of law protecting the public interest - interest of society as a whole. The class action in connection with the relative unlawfulness is a moderate, just enlargement of the standing. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Prawo cywilne; Roszczenia; Prawodawstwo; Orzecznictwo sądu

EN

Civil law; Claims; Legislation; Judicial decision

• Czasopismo: Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica
• Rocznik: 1986
• Numer: nr 27 Prawo i postępowanie cywilne
• Strony: 55--88

Twórcy

autor

Rafał Kasprzyk

• Uniwersytet Łódzki

Bibliografia

• 1. A. Agopszowicz, Obowiązek zapobieżenia szkodzie, Wrocław 1978, s. 136-137, 221 i n.
• 2. M. Cappelletti, La protection d'intérêts collectifs et de groupe dans le procès civil, "Revue Internationale de Droit Compare" 1975, No 3, s. 582.
• 3. M. Cappelletti, B. Garth, The Protection of Diffuse, Fragmented and Collective Interests in Civil Litigation, [w:] Effektiver Rechtschutz und verfassungsmässige Ordnung, Bielfeld 1983, s. 134 i n.
• 4. A. Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, "Harvard Law Review" 1976, vol. 89, No 7, s. 1292-1293.
• 5. A. Chayes, The Supreme Court 1981 Term, Foreword: Public Law Litigation and the Burger Court, "Harvard Law Review" 1982, vol. 96, No 1, przyp. 130.
• 6. E. J. Cohn, Parties: International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. 16, Tübingen - the Haag - Paris 1976, rozdz. 5, s. 35-36.
• 7. R. N. Corley, O. Lee Reed, R. L. BIack, The Legal Environment of Business, McGrow-Hill, Inc. 1984, s. 57.
• 8. P. S. James, Introduction to English Law, London 1979, s. 26 i n.
• 9. B. Kaplan, Continuing Work of the Civil Commitee: 1966 Amendments of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1), "Harvard Law Review" 1967, vol. 81, No 2, s. 375-376.
• 10. H. Kötz, Public Interest Litigation: A Comparative Survey, [w:] Acces to Justice and the Welfare State, Alphen, Bruxelles, Stuttgard, Florence 1981, s. 114-115.
• 11. B. Lewaszkiewicz-Petrykowska, Wina jako podstawa odpowiedzialności z tytułu czynów niedozwolonych, SPE 1969, t. 2, s. 91.
• 12. J. Limpens, R. M. Kruithof i A. Meinertzhagen-Limpens, Liability for One's Own Act, [w:] International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. 11, Tübingen, Alphen 1979, rozdz. 2, s. 64 i n.
• 13. Z. Masłowski, glosa do orz. SN z 13.04.1962, OSPiKA 1964, poz. 3.
• 14. A. Miller, Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the "Class Action Problem", "Harvard Law Review" 1979, vol. 92, No 3, s. 664 i n.
• 15. I. J. Sloan, Environment and the Law, New York 1971, s. 48.
• 16. H. Smit, La procedure civlie comme instriument de réforme sociale, ,,Revue Internationale de Droit Compare" 1976, No 3, s. 456.
• 17. Snell's Principles of Equity, ed. by R. E. Megary and P. V. Baker, London 1966, s. 695 i n.
• 18. H. Stoll, Consequences of Liability; Remedies; International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. 11, Tübingen, the Hague, Paris, New York 1972, rozdz. 8, s. 154 i n.
• 19. A. Szpunar, glosa do orz. SN z 3.03.1956, OSPiKA 1959, poz. 197.
• 20. W. Whitford, The Enforcement of the Consumer Law in the United States: European Consumer Law, Prospects for Integration of Consumer Law and Policy within the European Community, Caby Bruylant 1982, s. 379 i n.
• 21. J. Vincent, Procédure civile, Paris 1974, s. 34, 39 i n.
• 22. Z. Ziembiński, Logika praktyczna, Warszawa 1969, s. 35.