Mass claims across borders: a deep dive into Poland and Belgium

Following our publication of 15 January 2025 on the class actions regulations of the Netherlands, England & Wales, and Germany (see here), the present article aims at offering a focus on the collective redress action regime in the jurisdictions of Belgium and Poland, with a view to provide a clearer understanding of the differences between class action systems across EU Member States, as well as to highlight their respective advantages and drawbacks. 

Existing legal frameworks in Poland and Belgium have recently undergone several changes due to the enactment of the Directive on Representative Actions (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and Council of 25 November 2020 (“RAD”), which EU Member States had until 25 December 2022 to implement into their own national laws (see our Implementation Tracker for more details). The RAD aims to promote greater harmonisation of the systems put in place by the Member States, notably by providing an effective procedural mechanism that allows collective redress actions to be brought by so-called “Qualified Entities” (“QEs”) acting on behalf of groups of claimants harmed by unlawful practices which breach specific EU laws. 

Find out more about the collective redress action regime in Poland and Belgium below:

• Poland - the 2009 Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings and changes following the RAD
  
• Belgium - Main features of the legal framework and its amendments following the Act of 21 April 2024

Poland – the 2009 Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings

Prior to implementation of the RAD Poland already recognised class action proceedings by way of the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings of 17 December 2009 (the “Act”). One of the key events that prompted this regulation was the 2006 Katowice Trade Hall roof collapse – the most tragic building collapse in modern Polish history. With 65 fatalities, this disaster underscored the need for an effective legal framework enabling large groups of victims to pursue their claims collectively. 

The fundamental purpose of class action proceedings is to consolidate the claims of multiple individuals who have suffered similar harm due to a single event into one unified legal process. This procedural mechanism enhances the effectiveness of judicial proceedings by streamlining case management, reducing litigation costs, and ensuring consistency in legal adjudication. Furthermore, class action cases often result in precedent-setting rulings, influencing judicial practice and statutory interpretation.

Group Formation and Representation

Under Polish law, a case qualifies as a class action if:

1. It involves at least 10 claimants.
   
2. The claims are of the same type and originate from a common factual basis.
   
3. The case falls within a specified category of disputes, including: 
   1. damage caused by a defective or hazardous product, 
      
   2. tort liability claims,
      
   3. liability for non-performance or improper performance of contractual obligations,
      
   4. claims arising from unjust enrichment,
      
   5. consumer protection matters, including other cases (such as those concerning the recognition of practices infringing general consumer interests or claims arising from such practices).

In cases involving monetary claims, claimants must standardise the value of their claims, meaning all members of the group must seek an equal amount of compensation. It is possible to form subgroups, where each subgroup has a unified claim value, provided that each such subgroup consists of at least two members. Alternatively, instead of claiming a specific amount of compensation, claimants may seek only the establishment of liability. The issuance of a judgment “on the merits” in a group proceeding determines only the legitimacy of the claim. However, a separate proceeding is necessary to establish the amount of the claim (but usually in such cases the parties reach a settlement as the defendant is in a lost position). Notably, consumer claims are exempt from the standardisation requirement.

Class action proceedings in Poland follow the principle of representation, whereby a single representative initiates and conducts the lawsuit on behalf of the entire group. The group itself cannot independently bring a collective lawsuit: Only the designated representative holds the legal standing to file a claim.

The representative litigates in their own name but for the benefit of all group members, including their own claim, unless they act as a public consumer advocate (e.g., a Consumer Ombudsman or the Financial Ombudsman). A group representative may be:

1. a member of the group,
2. a municipal or district consumer ombudsman, or
3. the Financial Ombudsman.

Polish class actions operate on an opt-in basis. This means that individuals must explicitly declare their intention to join the lawsuit to be considered part of the claimant group. Upon recognising the case as a class action, the court issues a binding decision and orders a public announcement inviting potential claimants to join. This announcement is disseminated in a manner appropriate to the case, such as:

• Posting in the Public Information Bulletin of the competent court,
  
• Publication on the websites of the involved parties or their legal representatives,
  
• Placement in national or local press outlets.

After the court-designated deadline for joining expires, no further claimants may enter the proceeding. The defendant is then given no less than one month to challenge the inclusion of specific individuals. Subsequently, the court issues a final ruling defining the composition of the group, subject to complaint. Once this ruling becomes final, members may no longer withdraw from the group, except in cases where they object to a settlement approved by the court.

Costs and Duration of Class Action Proceedings

The filing fee for a class action lawsuit is half of the standard fee with the maximum cap of PLN 100,000 (approx. EUR 24,000). 

Defendants may request a security deposit if they demonstrate that the claim is manifestly unfounded and that failing to secure costs may hinder enforcement in the event of claim dismissal.

The deposit, which must be paid in cash, cannot exceed 20% of the claim’s value. If initial security is insufficient to cover litigation costs, the defendant may request an increase.

Legal representation agreements may stipulate a success fee, which cannot exceed 20% of the amount awarded to the claimants.

Class action proceedings in Poland are often complex and time-consuming due to the requirement to issue several procedural rulings:

1. A decision on admissibility as a class action,
   
2. A decision defining the composition of the group,
   
3. The possibility for the defendant to challenge the inclusion of specific individuals in the group, which may result in changes to its composition, and
   
4. A decision on the security deposit.

Each ruling is subject to a complaint, which may significantly prolong the proceedings, as consideration of each such complaint may take up to 15 months. As a result, the initial procedural stage may take from one year to several years.

Class Actions in Consumer Disputes: Key Differences

While standard group litigation follows the general rules outlined above, consumer class actions are subject to special procedural adaptations designed to enhance consumer protection:

1. No claim standardisation requirement: unlike in general class actions, consumers may pursue varying claim amounts within a single proceeding;
   
2. Restricted pool of representatives: only designated public entities, such as the Consumer Ombudsman, the Financial Ombudsman, or consumer organisations, may represent the group;
   
3. Risk-sharing mechanisms: the financial burden of litigation falls on consumer organisations rather than individual consumers, reducing financial risk for claimants.

These adaptations make consumer class actions more accessible and mitigate the risks for individual participants, strengthening consumer rights protection as a result. However, despite these procedural advantages, consumer class actions do not benefit from any special regulations that would expedite the proceedings. All procedural rulings are issued and subject to a complaint in the same manner as in standard class action cases, meaning that the duration of proceedings remains unchanged despite some consumer-friendly adaptations.

Implementation of the Representative Actions Directive in Poland

As a result of the RAD adoption within EU, Poland was obliged to adjust its legal framework to enable effective collective redress for both domestic and cross-border claims. 

Poland achieved this through amendments to the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings, introducing changes aimed not only at aligning with EU requirements but also at improving the national system for protecting consumers and other affected groups.

The most important changes include:

1. Expansion of the Eligible Entities to Act as Group Representatives (QEs): The RAD mandates that only certain entities, called Qualified Entities (“QEs”), can initiate collective actions. In Poland, this includes consumer organisations such as the Financial Ombudsman, the Consumer Ombudsman, and other groups that may act on behalf of consumer interests. 
   
2. Cross-Border Actions: now consumers from multiple EU Member States are allowed to bring collective redress actions in Poland in cases concerning breaches of EU laws on consumer protection, data protection, and environmental regulations. Such claims can now be addressed through a single collective procedure, simplifying the process, and reducing costs.
   
3. Exemption from Court Fees for Entities Representing Groups: In line with RAD, QEs are exempt from court fees, which allows them to take action more effectively on behalf of consumers and other affected groups. This reduces financial barriers that might otherwise prevent access to justice, particularly in cases where affected individuals cannot afford the costs of litigation.
   
4. No-Win, No-Fee and Other Risk-Sharing Mechanisms: Following the changes, particularly for QEs, the no-win, no-fee mechanism was introduced. This means that these organisations do not bear financial risk in the event of an unsuccessful case. They only incur costs when claims are successful. This mechanism increases the accessibility of collective actions, particularly in cases where individual consumers or businesses would otherwise be unable to shoulder the financial risk associated with lengthy legal proceedings.

Conclusion

Group litigation in Poland serves as a crucial mechanism for protecting collective rights and ensuring access to justice, particularly for consumers and individuals harmed by large-scale incidents. While the system offers significant advantages, including procedural efficiency and legal consistency as well as additional improvements resulting from the RAD implementation, challenges remain - most notably, the lengthy duration of proceedings and procedural complexity. Further legislative reforms aimed at expediting proceedings and simplifying procedural requirements could enhance the effectiveness of class action litigation, but currently such reforms are beyond the scope of interest of the government. 

Although these challenges persist, Poland’s class action framework continues to play a pivotal role in the legal landscape, ensuring equitable and effective redress for affected groups and shaping the evolution of judicial practice.

Here is the freshest example: in the latest ruling of February 2025 the Warsaw District Court (acting as the court of first instance) ruled in favour of a group of entrepreneurs who had sued the State Treasury over business restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that the so-called lockdowns were unconstitutional. The court ruled that State should be held liable for the damages and profits lost by the plaintiffs. If the judgment is upheld in the appellate proceedings, the entrepreneurs will have an easier path to seek specific compensation from the State Treasury. The case was resolved in just two and a half years, proving the efficiency of collective claims in such matters.

In contrast, a decade-long proceedings against Bank Millennium highlights the inefficiencies of class actions in financial disputes. In 2014, 5,000 borrowers sued the bank for unfair contract terms. The process was slow from the start — official proceedings only began in 2018, and in 2022, the court dismissed the claim. An appeal was filed, and the Financial Ombudsman later supported the borrowers, but the case after almost 11 years still remains unresolved. The prolonged litigation has left plaintiffs in legal and financial uncertainty, while individual claims have often led to quicker, favourable rulings.

Belgium – Main features of the legal framework and its amendments following the Act of 21 April 2024

Background

Belgian litigation has traditionally revolved around lawsuits between individual parties, where each party represents their own interests. A collective redress action, i.e. an action by which multiple plaintiffs of similarly situated class (represented by a single entity to whom they did not give a mandate) can seek similar relief from the courts, has taken a long time to become legally established. 

Over the years, Belgian law progressively adapted to collective litigation mechanisms, often under the influence of EU legislation. This led to the introduction of various collective legal actions on behalf of associations. However, these mechanisms were limited in scope, primarily focusing on securing injunctive relief within specific areas, such as labour, environmental protection, as well as human rights and non-discrimination. 

On 1st September 2014, Belgian law reached a major breakthrough through the introduction by the Act of 28 March 2014 of the collective redress action system (“action en réparation collective”/”rechtsvordering tot collectief herstel”), as provided for in Title 2 of Book XVII of the Code of Economic Law (“CEL”). 

Despite their introduction in Belgian law, only 11 collective redress actions have been brought so far, covering areas such as aviation, automotive, telecommunications, energy, and data protection. The primary entity bringing these cases is the Belgian consumer protection organisation “Testachats”/ “Test-Aankoop”, who acted on behalf of consumers against, among other defendants, Thomas Cook Group, Volkswagen Group, Proximus, Ryanair, and Apple. At present, case law experience is essentially limited to the admissibility phase and offers no practical examples of the enforcement phase.

Belgium implemented the RAD (a little belatedly) by adopting the law of 21 April 2024 amending Books I, XV and XVII of the CEL (the “Act”). The Act seeks to align the CEL with EU consumer protection standards, to enhance collective redress mechanisms for consumers following issues identified in case law and doctrine, and to improve access to justice by allowing qualified entities to initiate collective legal actions.

What are the key features of the Belgian legal framework and the main changes under the RAD’s implementation into the CEL?

Scope of lawsuits

Under the CEL, the action for collective redress is only admissible for a potential violation by an undertaking of its contractual obligations or of specified EU and Belgian regulations listed in the CEL, such as e.g.

• Competition law violations;
  
• Unfair trade practices and consumer protection breaches;
  
• Payment and credit services;
  
• Intellectual property;
  
• Product liability and safety issues, as well as pharmaceutical and healthcare-related claims;
  
• Data protection and privacy violations; and
  
• Air carrier liability in the event of accidents

The Act extended the scope of collective redress actions to align it with Article 2.1 RAD and refers in particular to the following:

• Commercial contracts (agency, cooperation, sales concessions, and transport agreements);
  
• Consumer debts;
  
• Travel sales and services;
  
• Late payment in commercial transactions; and 
  
• More generally, all provisions of EU law referred to in Annex I to the RAD and, where applicable, the provisions of Belgian law transposing them

Qualified Entities

Unlike in the U.S., Belgian class actions cannot be led by individual class members, commercial companies, trade unions, or law firms.

One of the Act’s major reforms is the recognition of so-called qualified entities (“QEs”), which are organisations or public bodies representing consumers’ interests specifically designated to bring collective redress actions (Article 4 RAD). Under the Act, collective redress actions can only be filed by either (i) a group representative that acts for the interests of consumers (“qualified bodies Consumers”), (ii) a group representative acting for small and medium-sized enterprises, i.e. enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million  (“SMEs”) (“qualified entities SMEs”), or (iii) by the Consumers’ Ombudsman (but in such case solely for the purpose of representing the group in the negotiation phase of a collective redress agreement). 

Pursuant to the Act, QEs must be recognised as such by the competent minister in Belgium. To do so, they must fulfil certain conditions, such as having a non-profit making character, having at least 12 months of actual public activity in consumer protection, be solvent and independent from commercial influence (including third-party funders). To enhance transparency, QEs also have the obligation to provide clear and comprehensive key information on the actions they initiated brought before the courts. This information must be provided by any appropriate means, be published on their website and remain accessible for at least five years after a case is closed. 

The Act states that approval granted by the minister to QEs is valid indefinitely, but compliance with the various criteria is monitored by the competent minister at least every five years (Article 5.3 RAD). Finally, QEs can also be recognised on an ad hoc basis by the judge when filing a specific action, or by another EU or EEA member state.

A publicly available list of approved QEs has been updated by the Belgian FPS Economy (“FPS”) and transmitted to the European Commission for publication (here).

Courts’ competence

The Brussels Enterprise Court and the Brussels Court of Appeal have exclusive competence to rule on collective redress actions, which was already the rule under the existing regime since the 2014 law. The aim of the legislator is to centralise proceedings and to develop the expertise and specialisation of these courts, also with a view to achieving uniformity of case law.

It is noteworthy that the Act (i) provides that foreign organisations recognised as QEs in another EU or EEA member state can also bring cross-border collective redress actions in Belgium (Article 6.1 RAD) and also (ii) provides for the possibility of Belgian-recognised representatives to initiate lawsuits in other EU Member States.

Admissibility phase

One of the sensitive points of the CEL before the adoption of the Act was the long duration of the admissibility phase. The judge was required to rule within two months of the filing of the application for collective redress, but there was no penalty attached to this time limit. This (excessively long) period was deemed an obstacle to the right to an effective legal remedy.

Henceforth, the admissibility of the action will be dealt with by the judge under the procedure of “short debates” (both in first instance and in appeal), with oral arguments being heard at the introductory hearing or at a nearby date, unless the two parties expressly and jointly depart from it. In this last case, the judge will decide the calendar for the exchange of written briefs and must rule on the admissibility of the action within six months from filing of the application. The decision on the admissibility is published in the Belgian Gazette (“Moniteur belge”/ “Belgisch Staatsblad”) and on the website of the Ministry for Economic Affairs.

Negotiations phase

The parties can launch negotiations leading to a possible settlement at any time during the proceedings, but they have an obligation to do so within the period that is set forth by the court, which is at least 3 months (and no longer than 6 months, extendable once, for a maximum of 12 months) following the day of the publication in the Belgian Gazette of the decision ruling on the admissibility. 

During the negotiation phase, the parties are free to choose between the opt-in or opt-out system, although – as was already the case before the adoption of the Act – the opt-in system (further described below) automatically applies to consumers who are not domiciled in Belgium and SMEs that do not have their establishment in Belgium, or in case the action aims to restore physical injury or moral harm.

Decision on the merits

In the absence of a settlement agreement during the “cooling-off” period of the negotiations, or if the judge refuses the settlement on certain grounds, the matter proceeds to the merits phase. The parties will then exchange written briefs and plead the matter at an oral hearing, following which the judge renders a judgment on the merits.

Whereas, under the regime that prevailed so far in the CEL, the choice between “opt-in” or “opt-out” was left to the sole discretion of the judge at the stage of the admissibility, the Act now enshrined a system of generalised “opt-in” system by default for all actions filed after 10 June 2024 (see below). The aim is to lighten the debates during the admissibility phase and thus save on procedure and costs. 

Under this new opt-in regime, when the judge ruling on the merits finds the defendant liable for collective compensation, the injured parties, consumers and/or SMEs have four months as of the date of publication in the Belgian Gazette of the judge’s decision to join the group, on the understanding that their decision is irrevocable. The legislator’s purpose is to encourage injured parties not to be passive and to join the group as soon as they know they will be compensated and to what extent.

Enforcement phase

For successful claims, the defendant must make redress as set out in the court-approved settlement or in the judgment on the merits. The remedies available to plaintiffs are compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement of the price paid (Art. 9.1 RAD). The court will appoint a trustee, who is required to submit a detailed quarterly report on the execution of his assignment throughout the progress made in implementing the approved settlement or the decision on the merits, as well as a final report at the end of the execution phase. The judge’s approval of the final report constitutes a writ of execution on the basis of which the trustee may claim payment of the sums due from the defendant.

Statute of limitations

A significant procedural change concerns the suspension of the statute of limitations for individual claims while a collective redress action is in progress. The Act amended the existing regime in order to implement Article 16 of the RAD and provides that the limitation period for individual actions of consumers or SMEs filed after 10 June 2024 is suspended as of the date on which the application for collective redress is filed with the court registry until (among other cut-off dates) the publication in the Belgian Gazette of the decision on the admissibility in which the court either declares the action inadmissible, or declares the action admissible but defines the group in a way that excludes the SME and/or the consumer. Such measure ensures that consumers or SMEs involved in a lawsuit do not lose their right to compensation simply because the collective redress action takes time.

Litigation funding

Another important reform addresses third-party funding of collective redress actions, which is not part of a well-developed market but remains allowed under Belgian law (while the RAD permits Member States to prohibit it). The fact that litigation funders are not particularly active in Belgium can be partly explained by the lack of profit motive in such an action, as the group representative can only recover his costs without any real return.

Under the Act, if a QE receives external financial support, it must disclose the funder’s identity as well as the amounts received. In addition, each QE is under a duty to ensure that it is independent and free from any influence by persons other than consumers as well as to have procedures in place to prevent such influence and any conflict of interest.

Conclusion: what can we expect to gain from these legislative changes?

By way of conclusion, the Act is expected to have several positive impacts on the existing Belgian legal regime of the CEL, such as 

• strengthening consumer protection;
  
• modernising Belgium’s consumer protection laws in aligning them with EU regulations;
  
• increasing legal certainty by establishing clear recognition criteria for organisations that can represent consumers or SMEs in collective redress actions;
  
• introducing transparency rules regarding funding sources, independence of the QEs, and preventing conflicts of interest;
  
• facilitating cross-border actions by allowing foreign consumer organisations from the EU to file lawsuits in Belgium.
  

It is to be hoped that Belgian case law will offer practical examples of collective redress actions and their new procedural features, even if, as indicated above, the number of disputes of this kind is relatively small so far.

Authored by Cedric Berckmans, Adrien Willocx, Dominik Hincz and Gabriela Trocka.