A German distributor wins a contract dispute in a Warsaw court after two years of litigation. The judgment is clear. But the recovery of legal costs – attorney's fees, court fees, expert fees – turns out to be a separate battle. The rules governing who pays, how much, and under what conditions are more technical than most foreign parties anticipate.

Polish civil proceedings follow the "loser pays" principle under the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC). The winning party is entitled to recover procedural costs, including court fees and attorney's fees capped at statutory rates set by the Minister of Justice. The court awards costs automatically in the final judgment, but the calculation method, the treatment of partial success, and the exceptions for bad-faith conduct can significantly alter the final figure.

This analysis covers the doctrinal foundations of cost recovery, the calculation rules that determine how much is actually awarded, the cross-border dimension for foreign claimants, and the strategic choices that affect cost outcomes. Each section includes the figures that matter in practice. Understanding these rules before filing – not after – is the difference between a commercially viable claim and one that eats its own recovery.

What are the foundations of cost recovery in Polish civil proceedings?

Polish procedural law rests on two pillars for cost recovery. First, the responsibility principle: the party that caused the costs bears them. Second, the outcome principle: the losing party reimburses the winner. Both apply simultaneously under the KPC, and the court must apply them in every contested case. Court fees in first-instance proceedings range from PLN 30 for small claims to a maximum of PLN 200,000 for claims exceeding PLN 2 million.

The National Court Register (KRS) records the legal status of all parties. This matters because corporate identity affects standing to claim costs. A company that has undergone transformation or merger may face challenges establishing continuous entitlement to costs incurred before the change. The court checks KRS status at the time of the award. Parties with incomplete KRS registration have had cost awards challenged on procedural grounds.

Costs covered by the KPC include court fees, attorney's or legal counsel's fees, expert witness fees, travel costs of the parties, and costs of summoning witnesses. Notably, the statute distinguishes between koszty sądowe (court costs) and koszty procesu (litigation costs). The latter is the broader category. Attorney's fees are recoverable only up to the applicable statutory ceiling – actual fees paid to counsel above the cap are not recoverable from the opposing party.

The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) and the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) are relevant in regulatory disputes where cost recovery intersects with administrative proceedings. In pure civil litigation, however, the KPC framework governs exclusively. One parenthetical worth noting: costs incurred in pre-litigation mediation are not automatically recoverable in subsequent court proceedings unless the court expressly includes them.

  • Court fees: calculated as a percentage of the claim value, subject to a PLN 200,000 ceiling
  • Attorney's fees: capped at statutory rates regardless of actual contractual fees
  • Expert fees: recoverable in full if ordered by the court
  • Witness costs: travel and loss-of-earnings allowances at statutory rates
  • Enforcement costs: a separate category, recoverable in enforcement proceedings

The foundation matters strategically. A party that understands these categories before filing can structure its claim to maximise recoverable costs. A party that ignores them may win on the merits and still face a net loss after accounting for non-recoverable fees.

How does the court calculate the cost award in practice?

Calculation depends on three variables: the outcome, the proportion of success, and the conduct of the parties. Full success means full recovery of costs at the statutory ceiling. Partial success – the most common outcome in contract and damages disputes – triggers proportional allocation. If a party recovers 60% of its claim, it recovers approximately 60% of its litigation costs and bears 40% of the opponent's costs. The court has discretion to deviate, but deviation requires written reasoning.

Attorney's fees follow the rates set by the Minister of Justice in two separate regulations: one for advocates (adwokaci) and one for legal counsels (radcowie prawni). The rates are tiered by claim value. For a PLN 1 million claim, the base statutory rate is PLN 10,800. For a PLN 10 million claim, the base rate is PLN 25,000. Courts may increase the award up to six times the base rate in particularly complex cases – but this is rare and requires express justification.

We secured a full cost recovery award exceeding PLN 180,000 for a technology client in Mazowieckie (autumn 2025). The court applied the maximum multiplier on the basis of documented complexity and the opponent's procedural obstruction. That outcome required a detailed cost specification filed within the deadline – a step that many parties overlook.

Bad faith conduct triggers a separate mechanism. The court may order a party that acted in bad faith or negligently to reimburse costs regardless of the outcome. This applies to parties who filed clearly unfounded motions, withheld documents, or caused unnecessary adjournments. The threshold for "bad faith" under the KPC is lower than in criminal law – deliberate procedural obstruction suffices. This is a genuine litigation risk for parties relying on delay tactics.

One practical point: the cost specification (spis kosztów) must be submitted before the close of the hearing. Failure to submit it means the court calculates costs based on its own assessment, which typically produces a lower figure. Filing a detailed, documented specification is not optional – it is a prerequisite for maximum recovery.

What cross-border issues arise for foreign claimants pursuing cost recovery in Poland?

Foreign parties face three specific complications. First, security for costs (cautio iudicatum solvi). Under the KPC, a foreign claimant domiciled outside the European Union may be required to deposit a security for the defendant's potential cost award before proceedings advance. The amount is set by the court. EU-domiciled claimants are exempt under EU procedural harmonisation. For non-EU investors – including those from Ukraine, the UK post-Brexit, or the United States – this security obligation can tie up capital for the duration of litigation.

Second, currency conversion. Polish courts award costs in PLN. Where a foreign party has incurred legal fees in EUR or USD, the conversion rate applied is the National Bank of Poland (NBP) rate at the date of the award. Exchange rate movements between the date costs were incurred and the date of the award can reduce the real value of recovery. This is particularly relevant in long-running proceedings.

For Ukrainian and CIS clients, our Ukraine Desk has specific experience with the security-for-costs procedure. The threshold for exemption is residency or registered office within the EU. Ukrainian companies litigating in Poland should budget for security deposits of between 10% and 30% of the estimated opponent's costs, depending on the court's assessment of risk. For context on the broader framework for Ukrainian businesses in Polish courts, see our analysis of dispute resolution for Ukraine companies doing business in Poland.

Third, enforcement of cost awards abroad. A Polish cost award is a judgment and can be enforced within the EU under Brussels I Recast (Regulation 1215/2012) without a separate declaration of enforceability. Outside the EU, enforcement depends on bilateral treaties or national recognition procedures. We obtained enforcement of a Polish cost award in Italy for a Wielkopolska-based manufacturing client (spring 2026) – a process that required coordination with local counsel and took approximately four months. For a step-by-step analysis of that enforcement route, see our guide on enforcing an Italian judgment in Poland.

Sanctions compliance is a separate overlay. Where a party or its beneficial owner is subject to EU or US sanctions, costs awarded in their favour may face restrictions on payment and transfer. This is not a theoretical concern – sanctions compliance review should precede any cost recovery enforcement step involving cross-border transfer.

For a detailed analysis of how employment-related disputes interact with cost recovery rules – relevant where a foreign employer faces claims from Polish employees – see our discussion of workplace harassment and employer duties under Polish law.

How do cost rules apply in arbitration and public procurement appeals?

Arbitration in Poland operates under Part Five of the KPC, which sets separate cost rules for arbitral proceedings. The arbitral tribunal has broad discretion to allocate costs. Institutional arbitration – conducted before the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (SAKiG) or the Lewiatan Court of Arbitration – follows the institution's own cost schedule. Registration fees and arbitrator fees are substantially higher than court fees in state proceedings. For a PLN 5 million dispute before SAKiG, registration and arbitrator fees may exceed PLN 150,000.

The KIO appeal (appeal to the National Appeals Chamber, Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza) is a distinct public procurement dispute mechanism. KIO proceedings have their own cost structure. The filing fee is PLN 15,000 for supply and service contracts and PLN 20,000 for construction contracts above EU thresholds. If the appeal succeeds, the contracting authority reimburses the fee. If it fails, the appellant bears its own costs. The KIO does not award attorney's fees – a significant difference from ordinary civil proceedings.

The distinction matters for strategy. A party with a strong merits position in a procurement dispute may recover the filing fee but not counsel fees through KIO proceedings. If the same dispute has a contractual dimension amenable to civil litigation, the cost recovery calculus changes substantially. Choosing the right forum is therefore a cost question as much as a merits question.

In arbitration, the "loser pays" principle applies by default in most institutional rules, but the tribunal may modify it. Parties in arbitration proceedings should expressly address cost allocation in their arbitration agreement or, failing that, in their opening submissions. A well-drafted cost submission can increase recovery by 20% to 40% compared to a default allocation. This is especially relevant in disputes exceeding PLN 2 million, where the difference between a default and an argued cost award is commercially significant.

What strategic choices maximise cost recovery in Polish proceedings?

Strategy begins before filing. The claim value determines the court fee and the statutory attorney's fee ceiling. Over-claiming inflates costs without increasing the recovery ceiling proportionally. Under-claiming reduces the court fee but also reduces the ceiling for attorney's fee recovery. The optimal claim value is the one that accurately reflects the recoverable loss – not a round number chosen for convenience. Courts are alert to artificial inflation and may sanction it through the bad-faith mechanism.

Settlement timing affects cost recovery directly. A settlement reached before the first hearing typically means each party bears its own costs unless the settlement agreement specifies otherwise. A settlement reached mid-proceedings, after significant costs have been incurred, may include a cost component. Parties who settle without expressly addressing costs forfeit their right to a cost award. This is a lost opportunity that arises repeatedly in practice – particularly where in-house counsel negotiate the commercial terms without involving litigation counsel on the cost allocation.

Interim measures (zabezpieczenie) have their own cost rules. The cost of obtaining interim protection – court fees, attorney's fees for the application – is recoverable if the main proceedings succeed. If the main claim fails, the party that obtained interim measures may be liable for the opponent's costs caused by the measures. The risk of a reversal in interim measures proceedings is therefore not just procedural – it carries a financial consequence that can reach six figures in high-value disputes.

What to prepare before initiating proceedings:

  • Detailed cost estimate broken down by category (court fees, counsel fees, expert fees)
  • Assessment of partial success scenarios and their cost implications
  • Review of opponent's jurisdiction for security-for-costs obligations
  • Draft cost specification (spis kosztów) ready for submission at the close of hearing
  • Sanctions compliance check if cross-border cost transfer is anticipated

One trigger worth emphasising: failing to submit a cost specification before the hearing closes permanently forfeits the right to a full cost award. The court will not reopen the issue. That forfeiture is irreversible. It is the single most common procedural error we see in cases where parties have otherwise succeeded on the merits.

What is the outlook for cost recovery rules in Poland?

Polish procedural law is in a period of active reform. The Ministry of Justice has circulated proposals to raise the statutory attorney's fee ceilings, which have not been updated comprehensively since 2015. The proposed increase – estimated at 30% to 50% across most tiers – would significantly increase the cost exposure of losing parties and the potential recovery of winning parties. The reform is expected to take effect no earlier than 2027, but parties entering into long-term contracts now should factor the potential change into their dispute resolution clauses.

The digitalisation of Polish courts is accelerating. The electronic filing system for civil proceedings (Portal Informacyjny Sądów Powszechnych) already handles a substantial volume of case management. The next phase – electronic hearings and AI-assisted case allocation – will affect the timeline of proceedings and therefore the accrual of litigation costs. Shorter proceedings mean lower total costs but also a compressed window for cost strategy. Parties accustomed to multi-year litigation timelines should recalibrate their assumptions.

Cross-border cost recovery will be affected by the continued evolution of EU procedural law. The proposed revision of the Brussels I Recast framework includes provisions on cost awards that would standardise enforcement across member states. For businesses operating across the EU, this would reduce the friction of enforcing Polish cost awards in Germany, France, or Italy. The timeline for that reform is uncertain, but the direction is clear.

Arbitration Poland is growing as a preference for commercial disputes above PLN 2 million. As institutional arbitration costs rise, the cost differential between state court litigation and arbitration is narrowing. The choice of forum will increasingly be driven by enforcement considerations – particularly where the opponent's assets are located outside Poland – rather than speed or cost alone. This shift will require litigation Warsaw counsel to advise on arbitration cost structures as a standard part of pre-dispute strategy.

The recovery landscape for dispute lawyer practices is changing. Clients increasingly demand cost budgets and cost-outcome analyses before authorising proceedings. The firms that can provide rigorous pre-litigation cost modelling – not just legal advice on the merits – will be better positioned to advise on whether to litigate, settle, or pursue alternative mechanisms.

Your specific situation may be at a point where the cost recovery structure of your claim is still adjustable. Once proceedings are filed and the claim value is fixed, the ceiling on recoverable attorney's fees is set. That ceiling cannot be raised retroactively. Acting before filing preserves options that are permanently closed afterwards.

To receive an expert assessment of your cost recovery position in Polish proceedings, contact info@kordeckipartners.com. We will map the applicable statutory ceilings, identify the security-for-costs risk, and prepare a cost specification strategy tailored to your claim.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a foreign company recover attorney's fees above the statutory ceiling if it paid more to its Polish lawyers?

A: No. Polish courts award attorney's fees only up to the statutory ceiling set by the Minister of Justice, regardless of the actual fee arrangement between the party and its counsel. The ceiling is calculated by reference to the claim value. For a PLN 1 million claim, the base ceiling is PLN 10,800, with a possible increase up to six times that amount in exceptional cases. The difference between the actual fee and the ceiling is borne by the client, not recoverable from the opponent.

Q: How long does it take to receive a cost award after the judgment?

A: The cost award is included in the final judgment. In first-instance proceedings, the judgment typically issues within 2 to 6 weeks of the final hearing. The award becomes enforceable once the judgment is final – either after the appeal period expires (21 days from service) or after the appellate court confirms it. Enforcement proceedings for the cost component follow the same timeline as enforcement of the main judgment, which in Warsaw typically takes 2 to 4 months.

Q: Is it true that settling a case means each party pays its own costs?

A: This is a common misconception. Settlement does not automatically result in mutual cost-bearing. If the settlement is reached through court-supervised mediation, the court refunds 75% of the court fee already paid. The parties can and should expressly allocate costs in the settlement agreement. A settlement that is silent on costs leaves both parties exposed to a court ruling on costs, which may not reflect the commercial terms of the settlement. Always address cost allocation explicitly in any settlement document.

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 on cost strategy, interim measures, and enforcement proceedings. 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.