On paper, the choice looks simple: either submit the dispute to a Polish court or agree to arbitration. In practice, the two paths diverge sharply on cost, speed, enforceability, and confidentiality. Getting the decision wrong at the contract-drafting stage can lock a company into a forum that is structurally disadvantaged for the type of claim it is most likely to face.

Polish law gives commercial parties broad freedom to choose between state courts and arbitration for resolving disputes. The Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC) permits arbitration clauses for property rights and selected non-property rights capable of settlement. Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Poland follows the New York Convention, ratified without reservation, making awards from over 170 countries directly enforceable before the District Court (Sąd Okręgowy).

This alert sets out what has changed in the Polish dispute-resolution environment, which businesses are most affected by those changes, and what steps should be taken now – before a dispute crystallises.

What has shifted in the Polish dispute-resolution environment?

Three developments have converged to make the forum decision more consequential than before. First, the Polish judiciary's case backlog has grown. Commercial chambers at District Courts in Warsaw and Kraków now carry average first-instance timelines of 24 to 36 months for mid-complexity cases. Second, the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej, SA KIG) updated its procedural rules in 2023, introducing expedited proceedings for claims below PLN 1m. Third, the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) – Poland's specialist public procurement tribunal – has tightened its KIO appeal deadlines to 10 days from the date of the contracting authority's act, a change that catches many foreign bidders off guard.

Sanctions compliance has added a further layer. Contracts with counterparties subject to EU or US sanctions restrictions can create enforceability problems in both forums. An arbitral panel seated in Warsaw will apply EU law directly; a KPC court will do the same. But the procedural consequences of a mid-proceeding sanctions designation differ: arbitration allows more flexible case management, while state-court proceedings may be stayed pending a regulatory determination. For companies with cross-border supply chains, this asymmetry matters.

We secured a stay of enforcement proceedings for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), where a mid-proceeding sanctions designation had rendered the underlying contract partially void. The case turned on which forum had jurisdiction to rule on the validity question first.

Who is affected – and what are the critical thresholds?

The forum choice affects different business categories in distinct ways. Three groups face the sharpest exposure right now.

  • Foreign investors with Polish subsidiaries – enforcement of a Luxembourg or other EU judgment in Poland requires a separate exequatur procedure before a District Court, adding 3 to 6 months. An arbitral award under the New York Convention skips that step. For background on the enforcement process, see our guide on enforcing a Luxembourg judgment in Poland step by step.
  • Technology and AI sector companies – disputes involving AI-generated outputs, licensing, and data rights often require technical expert evidence. Arbitration allows parties to appoint domain-specific experts directly. State courts rely on court-appointed experts, whose availability can extend timelines by 6 to 12 months.
  • Ukrainian and CIS-based businesses – war-risk clauses, force majeure disputes, and cross-border asset tracing are increasingly common. Our analysis of dispute resolution for Ukraine companies doing business in Poland covers the specific procedural considerations for this group.

The PLN 75,000 threshold is a practical dividing line. Below it, the District Court's commercial chamber offers a relatively fast writ-of-payment procedure (nakaz zapłaty). Above it – particularly for claims exceeding PLN 500,000 – arbitration's front-loaded costs (registration fee plus arbitrator fees, typically 3 to 5 percent of the claim value at SA KIG) become economically rational when weighed against a 30-month court timeline.

Our team obtained interim protective measures for a German technology investor's Polish subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), where the arbitration clause had been drafted without an emergency arbitrator provision. The gap cost the client 6 weeks of exposure before a state court could issue equivalent relief.

What should businesses do now?

The window for corrective action is the contract-drafting or renegotiation stage – not after a dispute has arisen. Once a claim is filed, the forum is fixed. Three immediate steps apply to most commercial operators in Poland.

  • Audit existing dispute-resolution clauses – check whether arbitration agreements specify the seat, governing rules, number of arbitrators, and language. A clause that omits the seat defaults to Polish law on the arbitral seat, which may not align with the parties' intent.
  • Assess claim-type fit – IP and technology disputes benefit from arbitration's expert flexibility; public procurement disputes must go to the KIO within the 10-day window, with no arbitration option available. For AI Act-related disputes, see our note on AI Act transparency obligations for AI providers in Poland.
  • Include an emergency arbitrator clause – standard SA KIG rules provide for emergency arbitration, but the clause must be expressly adopted. Without it, interim relief requires a parallel application to the District Court, adding procedural complexity and delay.

For companies already in dispute, the critical question is whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. Under KPC, an arbitration clause must be in writing. An exchange of emails referencing standard terms that include an arbitration clause can satisfy this requirement – but only if the reference is sufficiently specific. Courts have declined jurisdiction in cases where the clause was buried in general terms without clear incorporation language.

Sanctions compliance screening should run in parallel with forum selection. A dispute lawyer advising on forum choice in 2026 must factor in whether either party, or any asset in dispute, falls within a current designation list. Ignoring this at the outset can render an award unenforceable at the recognition stage.

Specific situations require tailored analysis. Your company's dispute exposure – its contract portfolio, counterparty profile, and asset location – determines which forum delivers the better risk-adjusted outcome. Acting before a claim arises preserves all options; waiting forfeits the most valuable ones.

To receive an expert assessment of your dispute-resolution clause or forum strategy, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

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 sanctions compliance. 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.