Commercial litigation in Polish courts – structure

A German-owned distribution subsidiary in Mazowieckie receives a PLN 4.7 million contractual claim from a Polish supplier. The board has no experience with Polish court procedures, no local counsel retained, and a 30-day window before the first procedural deadline expires. The wrong move at this stage – failing to raise a defence in the proper form, or missing the pre-trial disclosure window – can forfeit the right to present key evidence entirely.

Commercial litigation in Polish courts follows a structured multi-stage process governed by the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC). Cases before the commercial divisions of district and regional courts typically run 12 to 36 months at first instance, with appeals adding a further 12 to 24 months. Court fees are capped at PLN 200,000 per claim, and parties bear their own costs unless the court orders reimbursement to the winning side.

This guide walks through the full litigation cycle: pre-trial preparation, filing, the evidentiary phase, judgment, appeal, and enforcement. It also covers the three most common business scenarios, flags the procedural traps that cause the most damage, and answers the questions clients ask most frequently before instructing counsel.

How is commercial litigation structured in Polish courts?

Polish commercial disputes are heard by dedicated commercial divisions (wydziały gospodarcze) within the district courts (sądy rejonowe) and regional courts (sądy okręgowe). The National Court Register (KRS) determines which court has jurisdiction over a registered entity. Claims up to PLN 100,000 go to the district court; claims above that threshold go to the regional court. Warsaw's Regional Court handles the highest volume of commercial cases in Poland and maintains a dedicated Commercial Division XIV for the most complex matters.

The KPC introduced a mandatory pre-trial preparation phase in 2019. Before the first hearing, the presiding judge reviews the pleadings and may issue a preparatory order setting out the issues in dispute, the evidence to be admitted, and a hearing schedule. This order is binding. Parties that fail to flag evidence at this stage risk exclusion of that evidence later – an irreversible consequence that routinely surprises foreign litigants unfamiliar with the system.

Three procedural tracks exist. The standard track applies to most commercial disputes. The simplified track (postępowanie uproszczone) covers lower-value claims under PLN 20,000. The order-for-payment procedure (nakaz zapłaty) allows a creditor to obtain an enforceable payment order within days if the claim is documented by a written instrument. Choosing the wrong track at filing wastes time and money.

District court: claims up to PLN 100,000
Regional court: claims above PLN 100,000
Order-for-payment: suitable where debt is document-evidenced
Simplified track: claims under PLN 20,000
Standard track: all other commercial disputes

The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) and the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) may appear as parties or provide opinions in disputes touching regulated sectors. Foreign investors should also note that the Sąd Polubowny przy KNF (Arbitration Court at the KNF) offers an alternative for financial-sector disputes – but only where both parties consent.

What does the step-by-step litigation timeline look like?

The litigation cycle has six identifiable stages. Understanding each stage – and its typical duration – allows a business to plan cash flow, allocate management time, and assess settlement windows rationally. At first instance before a regional court in Warsaw, the full cycle from filing to judgment averages 18 to 24 months under current docket conditions.

Stage 1 – Pre-filing (weeks 1–4). Counsel reviews the contract, correspondence, and evidence base. A demand letter is sent. This is also the moment to assess whether arbitration in Poland is available under a contractual clause. Many commercial contracts contain arbitration clauses pointing to the Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej (Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce, SA KIG) or the Vienna International Arbitral Centre. If arbitration Poland is available, it can resolve disputes in 9 to 18 months – faster than most court tracks.

Stage 2 – Filing and service (months 1–3). The statement of claim (pozew) is filed with the court fee. The court serves it on the defendant, who has 14 days (in order-for-payment proceedings) or the period set by the judge in standard proceedings to respond. Interim measures – asset freezes, injunctions – can be sought simultaneously and are decided within days in urgent cases.

Stage 3 – Preparatory hearing (months 3–6). The judge holds a preparatory session to agree the litigation plan. Evidence is locked in at this stage. Parties that withhold documents here and try to introduce them later face exclusion. We secured a reversal of a contractual penalty exceeding PLN 1.8m for a manufacturing client in the Silesia region (winter 2025) precisely because we disclosed the full correspondence at this stage, before the opposing party could frame the narrative.

Stage 4 – Evidentiary hearings (months 6–18). Witness examinations, expert opinions, and documentary evidence are presented. Expert opinions (opinie biegłych) are commissioned by the court, not the parties. A court-appointed expert's report typically takes 3 to 6 months to produce. This is the longest phase and the primary driver of delays.

Stage 5 – Judgment (months 18–24). The court issues a written judgment with reasons within 30 days of the final hearing. Either party may appeal to the court of appeals (sąd apelacyjny) within 14 days of receiving the reasoned judgment. The appeal adds 12 to 24 months.

Stage 6 – Enforcement. A final judgment is enforced via the court bailiff (komornik sądowy). For foreign judgments – including those from France – the enforcement process follows a separate recognition procedure. See our step-by-step guide on enforcing a France judgment in Poland for the full procedure.

What are the most common procedural mistakes and how do they damage your case?

Procedural errors in Polish litigation are rarely correctable after the fact. The KPC operates on the principle of procedural concentration: evidence and arguments must be raised at the earliest opportunity. A party that raises a new factual argument after the preparatory hearing risks having it struck out entirely. This is not a technicality – it can destroy an otherwise meritorious defence.

The five mistakes we see most often, across manufacturing, IT, and foreign-investor scenarios:

Filing the statement of claim without attaching all documentary evidence – courts set short deadlines for supplements
Missing the 14-day window to object to an order for payment – the order becomes final and immediately enforceable
Failing to request interim measures at filing – assets may be dissipated before judgment
Underestimating the court-appointed expert phase – no private expert opinion substitutes for the court's expert
Ignoring sanctions compliance screening before enforcement against foreign counterparties

Sanctions compliance deserves special attention. A party seeking to enforce a judgment against a counterparty subject to EU or US sanctions may find that enforcement is legally blocked. Polish courts do not automatically screen for sanctions exposure. Counsel must do so. Failure to conduct this check before enforcement triggers personal liability for the instructing officer under EU sanctions regulations.

We obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 3.2m for an IT-sector client in the Małopolska region (summer 2025) by filing the interim application simultaneously with the statement of claim, before the defendant could restructure its asset base. Timing is everything in this phase.

For businesses operating cross-border supply chains, procedural risk intersects with ESG due diligence obligations. A dispute with a supplier may expose underlying compliance failures. Our analysis of ESG due diligence in supply chains from a Polish perspective sets out where those obligations bite and how they interact with litigation strategy.

How do costs, timelines, and strategy differ across three business scenarios?

The right litigation strategy depends on the client's commercial position, not just the legal merits. A manufacturing company with ongoing supply relationships has different priorities from an IT firm enforcing a software licence claim, or a foreign investor pursuing a joint-venture dispute. Below is a decision matrix for the three most common scenarios.

Scenario 1 – Manufacturing company, contractual penalty dispute. A Polish manufacturer faces a PLN 2.5m penalty claim from a German buyer alleging delivery delays. The contract is governed by Polish law. The buyer has filed in Warsaw's Regional Court. The manufacturer's priorities: challenge the penalty's enforceability, preserve the commercial relationship if possible, and limit litigation to 18 months. Strategy: file a robust defence with full documentary evidence at the first exchange, simultaneously propose mediation. Court fees for the defendant are nil at first instance; the claimant pays PLN 200,000 (the statutory cap). Counsel fees for a dispute of this size typically range from PLN 80,000 to PLN 150,000 at first instance.

Scenario 2 – IT company, unpaid invoices. A Warsaw-based software firm is owed PLN 380,000 by a client that disputes the scope of delivery. The claim is document-evidenced by signed delivery protocols. Strategy: use the order-for-payment procedure. If the defendant objects within 14 days, the case converts to standard proceedings. The court fee is 5% of the claim value – PLN 19,000 here. Timeline to enforceable order: 30 to 60 days if unopposed; 12 to 18 months if contested. The dispute lawyer's role in this scenario is to structure the claim so the documentary evidence is self-sufficient.

Scenario 3 – Foreign investor, joint-venture breakdown. A Hungarian investor holds 49% of a Polish spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością (private limited liability company, sp. z o.o.) and alleges that the majority shareholder has diverted company assets. This is a multi-track dispute: corporate remedies under the Kodeks spółek handlowych (Commercial Companies Code, KSH), civil claims before the commercial division, and potentially a KIO appeal if public procurement contracts are involved. Our guide to dispute resolution for Hungary companies doing business in Poland covers the specific procedural options available to EU-based investors. Timeline: 24 to 36 months for full resolution; interim measures can protect assets within days.

To receive an expert assessment of your commercial dispute strategy, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does commercial litigation in Polish courts actually take, and what drives the delays?

A: At first instance before a regional court, most commercial disputes resolve in 18 to 30 months. The primary delay driver is the court-appointed expert phase, which alone can take 3 to 6 months per expert. Appeals add a further 12 to 24 months. Warsaw courts are slower than regional courts in smaller cities due to docket volume, but offer more experienced commercial judges. Choosing the right procedural track at filing – particularly the order-for-payment route where available – can cut this timeline to under 3 months for document-evidenced claims.

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

A: This is a common misconception. Polish courts apply EU procedural standards and are bound by EU law on cross-border enforcement. A foreign claimant with well-prepared documentation and competent local counsel has no structural disadvantage. The real risk for foreign parties is procedural: missing deadlines, filing in the wrong language, or failing to appoint a local address for service. These errors cause delays that can look like bias but are purely self-inflicted. The KPC requires all documents to be in Polish; foreign-language documents must be accompanied by a certified translation.

Q: What does it cost to bring a commercial claim in Poland, and who pays at the end?

A: Court fees are calculated as a percentage of the claim value, capped at PLN 200,000. Counsel fees vary by complexity: PLN 50,000 to PLN 200,000 at first instance for mid-size commercial disputes is a realistic range. The losing party is ordered to reimburse the winner's costs, but the court applies a tariff that often covers only a fraction of actual counsel fees. Parties should budget on the assumption that they will bear their own counsel costs regardless of outcome. Expert witness costs – typically PLN 5,000 to PLN 30,000 per expert – are advanced by the requesting party and allocated by the court in the final judgment.

What should you prepare before instructing litigation counsel?

Early preparation reduces both cost and risk. A dispute lawyer in Poland can move faster and more effectively when the client arrives with organised materials. The preparatory hearing – which typically occurs within 3 to 6 months of filing – locks in the evidentiary record. Everything gathered before that date shapes the outcome.

Checklist – what to prepare before instructing counsel:

All contracts, amendments, and annexes, with execution dates confirmed
Complete correspondence record: email, letters, and any instant-messaging exchanges relevant to the dispute
Invoices, delivery records, payment confirmations, and bank statements
Any prior settlement negotiations or demand letters exchanged
Corporate documents confirming signatory authority for all relevant transactions

Litigation Warsaw practitioners will also ask about the counterparty's asset position. If enforcement is the ultimate goal, an asset check should be run before filing – not after judgment. The KRS provides publicly accessible information on registered capital and directors. A bailiff's search can reveal bank accounts and real property holdings. This intelligence shapes the decision on whether to seek interim measures at the outset.

Sanctions compliance screening is a final pre-filing step that is increasingly non-negotiable. Where the counterparty has any cross-border ownership structure, counsel should verify that enforcement will not breach EU or UK sanctions regimes before committing to litigation.

Your specific situation requires a tailored assessment before the first procedural deadline passes. Missing that window forfeits rights that cannot be recovered later.

To discuss how commercial litigation strategy applies to your case, email 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 and dispute resolution. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.