A German technology company files a claim in the London Court of International Arbitration. The Polish counterparty responds by launching parallel proceedings before the District Court in Warsaw, seeking a declaration that the arbitration clause is void. The German party now faces two fronts simultaneously – and the clock is running. Anti-suit injunctions exist precisely for this scenario, but their operation in the Polish context carries layers of procedural complexity that can trap even well-advised parties.

An anti-suit injunction is a court or tribunal order directing a party to refrain from commencing or continuing proceedings in another forum. Polish domestic law does not provide an express anti-suit mechanism, yet Polish parties and their opponents encounter such orders frequently – issued by foreign courts or arbitral tribunals against Polish proceedings, or sought by Polish parties abroad. The key variables are jurisdiction, enforceability in Poland, and the 14-day window that often separates effective protection from irreversible procedural loss.

This guide walks through the step-by-step procedure for dealing with anti-suit injunctions that touch Polish proceedings. It covers how such orders are obtained and challenged, what enforcement looks like before Polish courts, and the three business scenarios where the stakes are highest. Practical checklists and a FAQ section address the most common missteps.

What is an anti-suit injunction and how does it interact with Polish proceedings?

The concept is simple in theory. One forum tells a party: stop litigating elsewhere. In practice, the interaction with Polish proceedings raises immediate questions about sovereignty, EU law, and the limits of injunctive relief. Polish courts, sitting within the European Union, operate under Rozporządzenie Bruksela I bis (Brussels I bis Regulation, Recast) for civil and commercial matters across EU member states. That framework matters enormously when a foreign EU court issues an anti-suit order targeting Polish proceedings.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that anti-suit injunctions issued by one EU member state court against proceedings in another EU member state are incompatible with the Brussels I bis Regulation. The leading principle – established over two decades of CJEU jurisprudence – is that each member state's court determines its own jurisdiction. A Warsaw court facing a foreign EU anti-suit injunction directed at its proceedings will, as a rule, disregard it. The injunction simply has no purchase inside the EU inter-state context.

The picture shifts outside the EU. Anti-suit injunctions from English courts (post-Brexit), Swiss tribunals, or arbitral seats in Singapore or New York operate under different logic. These orders are not automatically void in Poland. Their effect depends on whether the issuing forum has personal jurisdiction over the Polish party, and whether Polish enforcement mechanisms can be engaged. The National Court Register (KRS) and commercial registry records often become relevant when identifying the correct respondent entity.

One practical point deserves emphasis. Arbitral anti-suit orders – issued by a tribunal already seised of a dispute – carry greater practical force than those issued by foreign state courts, because the arbitral award framework (New York Convention) provides a separate enforcement pathway. A Polish party ignoring an arbitral anti-suit order risks a final award recording that breach, with downstream enforcement consequences across 170 signatory states.

How is an anti-suit injunction obtained against a party conducting Polish proceedings?

The answer depends on the seat of the injunction-seeking forum. Three routes are most relevant: an English High Court application, an arbitral tribunal emergency order, and a provisional measure from a non-EU state court. Each has a distinct timeline, cost profile, and probability of practical effect on Polish proceedings. The fastest route – emergency arbitrator under most institutional rules – can produce an order within 14 days of filing, often for a filing fee in the range of EUR 10,000 to EUR 40,000 depending on the institution.

For the English High Court route, the applicant must establish: (1) a valid exclusive jurisdiction clause or arbitration agreement covering the dispute; (2) that the Polish proceedings are vexatious or oppressive in the sense of breaching that agreement; and (3) that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The application is typically made without notice in the first instance. The responding party then has an opportunity to discharge or vary the order at an inter partes hearing, usually within 7 to 21 days of service.

Serving an English anti-suit injunction on a Polish party requires compliance with the Hague Service Convention, to which Poland is a party. Service through the Polish Ministry of Justice as the designated central authority takes 2 to 4 months in practice. Applicants should therefore seek an order requiring the Polish party to accept service through its Polish counsel of record, if any, or through a nominated Warsaw address. Failure to effect proper service means the order cannot be enforced and may be set aside.

  • Identify the seat and governing rules of the primary dispute resolution agreement before applying.
  • File for emergency arbitral relief within 14 days of learning of the parallel proceedings.
  • Serve any foreign court injunction through proper Hague Convention channels – or by agreement.
  • Lodge a protective application in the Polish proceedings to preserve your procedural position.
  • Obtain Polish counsel immediately: the window for challenging jurisdiction in Warsaw is 14 days from service of the statement of claim.

We secured a stay of parallel domestic proceedings for an IT sector client facing a Warsaw commercial court action that directly contradicted a London arbitration clause (Mazowieckie region, autumn 2025). The stay was obtained within three weeks by combining an emergency arbitral order with a jurisdictional challenge filed before the District Court in Warsaw.

What are the enforcement and recognition challenges in Polish courts?

A foreign anti-suit injunction, once obtained, faces a distinct obstacle: Polish courts will not automatically recognise or enforce it. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Poland follows two tracks. Within the EU, Brussels I bis Regulation provides near-automatic recognition – but, as noted above, EU anti-suit injunctions directed at other EU courts are themselves incompatible with EU law, creating a circular impasse. Outside the EU, enforcement depends on bilateral treaties or the general provisions of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, KPC).

Under KPC's general recognition rules, a foreign judgment may be recognised if it is final, does not conflict with Polish public policy (klauzula porządku publicznego), was not obtained by fraud, and the respondent was properly served. The public policy exception is the most frequently invoked barrier. Polish courts have treated anti-suit injunctions as potentially infringing on the constitutional right of access to courts. That argument has traction, particularly where the injunction was issued ex parte and the Polish party had no meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Arbitral awards embodying anti-suit orders follow the New York Convention route. Poland ratified the Convention in 1961. Recognition is sought before the regional court (sąd okręgowy) at the respondent's domicile. The court has no power to review the merits. It may refuse recognition only on the grounds listed in the Convention: invalid arbitration agreement, procedural irregularity, non-arbitrability, or public policy. In practice, Polish regional courts grant recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the large majority of contested cases, typically within 3 to 6 months of filing.

For a client in the manufacturing sector, our team obtained recognition of a Swiss arbitral anti-suit order before the Regional Court in Wrocław, protecting assets in Lower Silesia from attachment proceedings launched in breach of an ICC arbitration clause (winter 2025). The recognition process took four months from filing to enforceable order.

What are the three key business scenarios involving Polish proceedings?

Understanding where anti-suit injunctions arise most frequently allows businesses to build preventive strategies. Three scenarios dominate our practice. Each carries its own risk profile, timeline pressure, and cost exposure. Identifying your scenario early – ideally before any proceedings are filed – reduces the cost of protection by an order of magnitude.

Scenario 1: Foreign investor with a Polish joint venture partner. A German or Dutch investor holds a shareholders' agreement governed by English or Swiss law, with an ICC or LCIA arbitration clause. The Polish partner, sensing advantage, files a claim before the District Court in Warsaw seeking a declaration that the agreement is unenforceable. The investor has 14 days from service of the Warsaw claim to file a jurisdictional objection. Simultaneously, it should apply for emergency arbitral relief. Delay beyond 14 days risks the Polish court assuming jurisdiction by default.

Scenario 2: Construction and FIDIC disputes. Large infrastructure projects in Poland frequently involve international contractors and FIDIC-based contracts. Disputes go to Dispute Adjudication Boards (DABs) first, then to ICC arbitration. A Polish subcontractor that disagrees with a DAB decision sometimes files parallel proceedings before the National Appeals Chamber (KIO) or commercial courts. The main contractor's anti-suit strategy here must address both the KIO appeal process and any civil court track. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) may also be relevant where project finance and regulated instruments are involved.

Scenario 3: Cross-border M&A disputes. Post-closing disputes under share purchase agreements governed by foreign law but involving Polish target companies generate some of the most complex anti-suit situations. The seller may initiate proceedings before the Polish registry court or commercial court to challenge a post-closing adjustment. The buyer, holding an arbitration clause, must act within days. Sanctions compliance checks – particularly relevant where the target operates in sectors with dual-use goods – add a further layer, as the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) may have independent jurisdiction that no anti-suit order can displace.

What are the common mistakes and how should disputes be structured to avoid them?

Most anti-suit failures trace back to drafting, not litigation. A dispute resolution clause that designates arbitration as "non-exclusive" or that carves out "urgent interim relief before competent courts" without specifying which courts creates ambiguity that Polish parties will exploit. Polish courts are not hostile to arbitration – the Supreme Court of Poland has repeatedly affirmed the pro-arbitration principle – but they will seise jurisdiction where the clause allows any reasonable doubt.

The second most common mistake is delay. Parties who wait to see whether the parallel proceedings will gain traction forfeit their best arguments. In Poland, a court that has spent 6 months on a case is unlikely to stay it voluntarily. The jurisdictional objection window – 14 days under the KPC – is hard and non-extendable. Missing it is an irreversible procedural loss that forfeits the right to challenge jurisdiction entirely.

A third failure mode involves sanctions compliance. Where a Polish party is subject to EU or US sanctions, or where the subject matter of the dispute involves sanctioned assets, the anti-suit strategy must be coordinated with a sanctions review. An injunction obtained against a sanctioned party may itself trigger compliance questions for the applicant. Dispute lawyers advising on arbitration in Poland increasingly treat sanctions screening as a prerequisite, not an afterthought.

Finally, parties underestimate the cost of getting it right. Emergency arbitral proceedings cost EUR 10,000 to EUR 40,000 in institutional fees alone, before counsel. Recognition proceedings in Poland add PLN 5,000 to PLN 20,000 in court fees plus legal costs. Budget these amounts at the contract negotiation stage, not after a dispute arises. Structuring the dispute resolution clause carefully at the outset – with proper seat selection, governing law, and service of process provisions – is the single most cost-effective investment in litigation Warsaw or any other forum will require.

For cross-border enforcement questions more broadly, our guides on enforcing a Cyprus judgment in Poland step by step and on enforcing a Ukraine judgment in Poland step by step address parallel recognition pathways that often intersect with anti-suit strategies. For clients whose disputes touch real property or infrastructure assets, the spatial planning and zoning rules in Poland guide provides relevant context on asset-side jurisdiction questions.

Your company's specific situation may already be at the point where parallel proceedings are live and the 14-day window is closing. Delay at this stage does not preserve options – it forecloses them permanently.

To receive an expert assessment of your anti-suit exposure and a step-by-step response strategy, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a Polish court issue its own anti-suit injunction to stop foreign proceedings?

A: Polish procedural law does not contain an express anti-suit injunction mechanism. However, Polish courts can issue interim measures under the Code of Civil Procedure that effectively restrain a party from taking steps in foreign proceedings, framed as a prohibition on specific conduct rather than a direct order to a foreign court. The practical effect is similar, but the legal basis and enforcement pathway differ significantly from common-law anti-suit orders. Any such application must be filed within the main proceedings and supported by evidence of irreparable harm.

Q: How long does it take to enforce a foreign arbitral anti-suit award in Poland?

A: Recognition of a foreign arbitral award before a Polish regional court typically takes 3 to 6 months from the date of filing, assuming no jurisdictional complications. Where the respondent actively contests recognition – invoking public policy or procedural irregularity – the process can extend to 12 months or more, with potential appeal to the Court of Appeal. Filing fees for recognition proceedings range from PLN 5,000 to PLN 20,000 depending on the value of the underlying claim. Parties should apply for recognition as early as possible, ideally in parallel with the foreign enforcement process.

Q: Is an anti-suit injunction from an English court still effective against Polish parties after Brexit?

A: Yes, but the enforcement mechanism changed materially after Brexit. English court judgments no longer benefit from Brussels I bis automatic recognition in Poland. Enforcement now depends on bilateral arrangements or the general KPC recognition rules, which require the Polish court to assess finality, public policy, and proper service. In practice, English anti-suit injunctions are most effective as a matter of personal jurisdiction over the English-law-governed transaction rather than as directly enforceable orders in Poland. The practical strategy is to combine the English injunction with a parallel arbitral order that can be enforced under the New York Convention.

KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to commercial litigation, arbitration, and cross-border dispute resolution. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.