Commercial litigation in Polish courts – structure

A German automotive supplier receives a writ of summons from a Warsaw district court. The claim: PLN 4.7 million in unpaid invoices. The supplier has 14 days to file a response before a default judgment is entered. Its in-house counsel has never seen a Polish court document before.

Commercial litigation in Polish courts is governed by the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC) and heard by dedicated commercial divisions of district and regional courts. First-instance proceedings typically last 12 to 24 months, with appeals adding a further 12 to 18 months. Foreign parties face specific procedural traps – service rules, response deadlines, and evidentiary requirements – that differ materially from common-law or German-law systems.

This analysis covers the court structure, the procedural timeline from filing to enforcement, cross-border dimensions for foreign investors, strategic decision points, and the outlook for reform. Each section opens with a direct answer so that a reader pressed for time can assess the key risk immediately.

How is the Polish commercial court system structured?

Polish commercial disputes are heard by specialised commercial divisions attached to ordinary courts. The National Court Register (KRS) and company-related matters – including shareholder disputes and board liability claims – fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of these divisions. There are two first-instance tiers: district courts (sądy rejonowe) handle claims up to PLN 100,000, while regional courts (sądy okręgowe) handle everything above that threshold. Appeals go to appellate courts (sądy apelacyjne), and extraordinary review lies with the Supreme Court of Poland.

The Warsaw Commercial Court – formally the Commercial Division of the Warsaw Regional Court – handles the largest volume of business disputes in Poland. It is also the court with the most significant backlog. Average first-instance duration in Warsaw has exceeded 24 months for complex multi-party cases. Krakow and Poznan regional courts tend to resolve matters in 14 to 18 months.

A separate track exists for procurement disputes. The National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) is a specialist body that reviews challenges to public procurement decisions. KIO proceedings are fast – a ruling typically issues within 15 working days of the appeal being filed. That speed makes KIO appeal a distinct instrument from ordinary commercial litigation.

The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) is not a court, but its administrative decisions are routinely challenged before the administrative court system – a parallel track that foreign financial institutions must navigate separately from the civil courts.

District courts: claims up to PLN 100,000
Regional courts: claims above PLN 100,000 (first instance)
Appellate courts: second-instance review
Supreme Court: cassation on points of law
KIO: public procurement challenges within 15 working days

What does the procedural timeline look like from filing to judgment?

The procedural sequence in Polish commercial litigation follows a defined statutory framework. Filing triggers a court fee of 5% of the claim value, capped at PLN 200,000. The defendant has 14 days to respond to an order for payment (nakaz zapłaty) or two weeks to file a formal defence in ordinary proceedings. Missing either deadline forfeits the right to contest the claim at that stage – an irreversible consequence that foreign defendants frequently discover too late.

After the exchange of initial pleadings, the court schedules a preparatory hearing. Since the 2019 KPC reforms, the judge is expected to set a litigation schedule at this stage, fixing deadlines for evidence submissions and witness hearings. In practice, scheduling delays push the first substantive hearing to 6 to 9 months after filing. Each subsequent hearing may be listed 3 to 4 months apart.

We secured a reversal of a payment order exceeding PLN 1.8 million for a logistics client in the Mazowieckie region (winter 2025). The defendant had missed the 14-day window but we successfully argued that service had been defective – demonstrating how procedural technicalities can reset the entire timeline.

Documentary evidence must be submitted with the initial pleadings or the preparatory brief. Polish courts apply preclusion rules strictly: evidence introduced late may be rejected unless the party demonstrates it could not have been submitted earlier. Witness examinations are conducted by the judge, not by counsel – a significant departure from adversarial systems that surprises many foreign litigants.

The first-instance judgment is delivered in writing, usually within one to three months of the final hearing. The losing party has two weeks to request written grounds (uzasadnienie) and a further two weeks after receiving those grounds to file an appeal. Total first-instance timeline: 12 to 24 months from filing to judgment.

How does cross-border litigation affect foreign investors in Poland?

Foreign investors face three layers of complexity that domestic parties do not. First, service of process on a foreign entity requires translation of the writ into the language of the defendant's home country and service through diplomatic or postal channels under the Hague Service Convention. This can add 3 to 6 months to the early procedural timeline. Second, enforcing a foreign judgment in Poland requires a separate recognition procedure before Polish courts – a step that adds cost and time even where the underlying judgment is uncontested. For detail on how that process works in specific jurisdictions, see our guides on enforcing a Cyprus judgment in Poland and enforcing an Italian judgment in Poland.

Third, sanctions compliance has become a live issue in Polish litigation since 2022. Counterparties connected to sanctioned entities face asset-freezing orders that can be obtained on an ex parte basis within 48 hours. Personal liability of board members for proceeding with sanctioned transactions is not hypothetical – Polish prosecutors have opened investigations in multiple cases. That risk profile changes the calculus for any foreign investor with even indirect exposure to sanctioned jurisdictions.

We obtained interim protective measures securing assets worth over EUR 3 million for a Dutch investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026). The application was filed ex parte and the order issued within two business days – illustrating that speed is achievable when the procedural groundwork is properly laid.

Choice-of-law and jurisdiction clauses in commercial contracts are generally respected under EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast). However, Polish courts retain jurisdiction over matters touching real property located in Poland, regardless of contractual choice. Environmental due diligence obligations attached to Polish real estate can generate litigation exposure that parties discover only after acquisition – a risk examined in our analysis of environmental due diligence for Polish real estate.

For a tailored strategy on cross-border litigation in Poland, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com. Our team has handled proceedings in Warsaw, Krakow, and Wroclaw for clients from 18 jurisdictions, and we can map the specific procedural exposure your company faces before a writ is served.

What strategic choices shape outcomes in Polish commercial disputes?

Three decisions made before proceedings commence determine the trajectory of a Polish commercial dispute. The first is the choice between litigation and arbitration. Poland has active arbitration institutions – the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej) is the most prominent – but arbitration clauses must be drafted with precision. A poorly worded clause can send the parties back to state courts, adding 6 to 12 months of jurisdictional argument before the merits are even considered.

The second decision is whether to seek interim measures. Polish courts can grant a zabezpieczenie (interim order) freezing assets or prohibiting specific acts before judgment. The applicant must show a prima facie claim and a risk that enforcement will be frustrated without the order. The order can be obtained in as little as 48 hours on an ex parte basis. However, if the main claim later fails, the applicant is liable for damages caused by the interim measure – a personal liability risk that shapes the calculus significantly.

The third decision concerns evidence strategy. Polish commercial litigation is document-heavy. There is no discovery in the common-law sense, but courts may order a party to produce a specific document if the opposing party identifies it with precision. Preparing a document map before filing – knowing what you have and what the counterparty likely holds – is more valuable in Polish proceedings than witness preparation.

Arbitration vs. litigation: check clause precision before committing
Interim measures: available within 48 hours, but carry counter-liability risk
Evidence preclusion: submit all documents with initial pleadings
Jurisdictional analysis: Brussels I Recast applies for EU counterparties
KIO track: use for procurement challenges, not general commercial disputes

Specific circumstances demand specific analysis. A manufacturing company in Silesia defending a PLN 8 million warranty claim faces different strategic choices than an IT firm in Mazowieckie pursuing a software licence dispute. The procedural tools are the same; the deployment differs. To receive an expert assessment of your litigation exposure, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

What is the outlook for Polish commercial litigation reform?

Polish commercial procedure is in a period of active reform. The 2019 KPC amendments introduced the preparatory hearing model and tighter preclusion rules. A further amendment package currently in legislative progress proposes expanding the use of remote hearings – piloted during the pandemic period – and introducing a dedicated fast-track for commercial claims between PLN 100,000 and PLN 500,000. If enacted, that track would target a 9-month first-instance timeline. No firm implementation date has been set as of April 2026.

Arbitration Poland practitioners have noted growing judicial willingness to refer disputes to mediation at the preparatory hearing stage. Courts can now impose cost sanctions on parties that refuse mediation without good reason. That shift creates a new strategic lever: a well-timed mediation proposal can both reduce litigation cost and signal procedural good faith to the judge.

The digitalisation of court filings has accelerated since 2023. The Portal Informacyjny system allows electronic submission of documents in most commercial courts, reducing physical filing delays from weeks to days. However, the system's reliability has been inconsistent, and missed deadlines caused by portal failures have generated a body of case law on deadline restoration – a technical area that a dispute lawyer must monitor continuously.

Sanctions compliance is likely to remain embedded in commercial litigation for the foreseeable future. Polish courts have shown willingness to stay proceedings where a party's claim is connected to sanctioned transactions, pending regulatory clearance. That intersection of civil procedure and public law creates a category of case with no clean resolution path – and personal liability exposure for directors who proceed without proper legal clearance.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does commercial litigation in Warsaw typically take from filing to enforceable judgment?

A: A first-instance judgment in Warsaw commercial courts typically takes 18 to 24 months from the date of filing. If the losing party appeals, a second-instance decision adds a further 12 to 18 months. Enforcement proceedings – once the judgment is final – take an additional 3 to 12 months depending on the debtor's asset position and cooperation. Parties seeking faster resolution should assess whether arbitration or interim measures are appropriate for their specific dispute.

Q: Is it a misconception that Polish courts always favour Polish parties over foreign claimants?

A: Yes, that is a misconception. Polish courts apply EU procedural law and domestic KPC rules uniformly regardless of party nationality. Foreign parties do face practical disadvantages – language, unfamiliarity with procedure, and service delays – but these are procedural, not substantive. A foreign claimant with a well-documented claim and properly submitted evidence has no inherent disadvantage on the merits. The risk lies in procedural missteps, not judicial bias.

Q: What does the court fee structure look like for a PLN 5 million commercial claim?

A: The court fee is 5% of the claim value. For a PLN 5 million claim, that is PLN 250,000 – but the statutory cap applies at PLN 200,000, so the actual fee is PLN 200,000. This fee is paid by the claimant on filing and is recoverable from the defendant if the claim succeeds. Legal costs (attorney fees) are separately recoverable but capped by ministerial tariff schedules, which often fall below actual market rates for complex commercial cases.

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 dispute resolution. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams navigating proceedings before Polish courts and international arbitration tribunals. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.