Then, in 2012 Mr Głuchowski and one of the defendants, PKO BP, settled the case. The bank agreed to apologise to the claimant in writing, pay him the compensation for non-pecuniary damage and make its toilets available to customers visiting the bank’s branch.
The same relief was ordered against the other defendant, Bank Pekao S.A., which was also compelled to make a written apology, pay the compensation for non-pecuniary damage and open its toilets to bank’s customers. The appeal concerned the last claim on opening toilet facilities to the broad spectrum of bank clients.
During the appeal hearing which was held on 23 January 2013 the attorney representing Bank PKO S.A. argued that the obligation of the party was of an abstract nature as it related to an indefinite group of people referred to as “clients of the bank”. He noted that cases concerning protection of personal interests involved an individual legal relationship. Consequently, the obligations imposed on a party may also refer to such an relationship. The Court of Appeal agreed with this reasoning and reversed the judgement on all points of appeal.
