Cross-border judgment enforcement – Brussels I bis

A German supplier wins a judgment against a Polish distributor in Frankfurt. The Polish company has assets – a warehouse in Łódź, receivables, bank accounts. Yet the judgment sits unused. Without enforcement proceedings in Poland, that paper victory pays nothing.

Under Rozporządzenie Bruksela I bis (Brussels I bis Regulation, EU Regulation 1215/2012), a judgment from one EU Member State is directly enforceable in Poland without a separate exequatur declaration. The creditor must obtain a certificate from the court of origin, then present that certificate to a Polish bailiff (komornik) alongside the enforceable judgment. The process can begin within weeks of receiving the certificate, though practical timelines depend on the debtor's asset profile and any opposition proceedings.

This guide walks through the step-by-step enforcement procedure, explains where creditors typically lose momentum, and maps three business scenarios onto the Polish procedural framework. Sections cover the certificate stage, the bailiff appointment, asset-tracing strategy, and the debtor's available defences – so you know what to expect before you file.

What does Brussels I bis actually change for Polish enforcement?

Brussels I bis abolished the exequatur requirement that previously forced creditors to obtain a Polish court declaration before enforcement could begin. This single change cut weeks – sometimes months – from the enforcement timeline. A creditor with a certified judgment from any EU Member State can now approach a Polish bailiff directly. The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) and the Polish courts remain relevant, but at a later stage if the debtor raises objections.

The practical effect is significant. Under the old Brussels I Regulation (2001), enforcement in Poland required a separate court application, a hearing, and a formal exequatur order. That process routinely took three to six months. Under Brussels I bis, the certificate from the court of origin acts as the gateway document. Enforcement can commence within days of presenting it to a bailiff.

Three conditions must be satisfied before a Polish bailiff will act. First, the judgment must originate from an EU Member State court (or a court whose proceedings were commenced after 10 January 2015, when Brussels I bis took full effect). Second, the judgment must be enforceable in the state of origin. Third, the creditor must hold the official certificate issued under Annex I of the Regulation. Missing any one of these forfeits the direct-enforcement pathway entirely.

Judgment from an EU Member State court
Judgment enforceable in the state of origin
Annex I certificate issued by the originating court
Translated certificate where the bailiff requires it

Poland does not require automatic translation of the certificate into Polish, but individual bailiffs may request a certified translation of key passages – particularly the operative part of the judgment. Budget up to PLN 1,500 for translation costs on a standard commercial judgment. Failing to anticipate this delays the first enforcement act by one to two weeks.

How does the step-by-step procedure work in Poland?

The enforcement process has four distinct stages: obtaining the certificate, selecting and instructing the bailiff, executing enforcement acts against specific assets, and managing any debtor opposition. Each stage has its own timeline and cost profile. Getting the sequencing right matters because a procedural error at stage one can invalidate enforcement acts taken at stage three.

Stage one – the Annex I certificate – is obtained from the court that issued the judgment. In Germany, for example, this is a straightforward administrative application. Most EU courts issue the certificate within two to four weeks. The certificate must confirm that the judgment is enforceable and must identify the parties, the amount awarded, and any interest accruing. We secured a certificate for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region in under three weeks (autumn 2025), enabling bailiff instruction before the debtor could dissipate assets.

Stage two – bailiff instruction – requires the creditor to file a written enforcement application (wniosek egzekucyjny) with a Polish bailiff of competent jurisdiction. Jurisdiction follows the debtor's address or the location of the assets to be seized. The application must attach the original enforceable judgment, the Annex I certificate, and a power of attorney if a lawyer is acting. The bailiff's fee at this stage is a fixed advance of PLN 300 to PLN 600, depending on the type of enforcement sought.

Stage three – enforcement acts – can include bank account seizure, seizure of receivables owed to the debtor, seizure of movable property, or mortgage registration against real estate. Bank account seizure is typically fastest: the bailiff sends a seizure notice to the debtor's bank, which must respond within seven days. Real estate enforcement is slower – expect six to eighteen months from mortgage registration to auction completion.

Stage four – debtor opposition – is where creditors most often lose ground. A Polish debtor can file an opposition (sprzeciw or zarzuty) with the Polish court within 30 days of receiving enforcement notice. The debtor cannot re-litigate the merits of the foreign judgment, but can challenge enforcement on public-policy grounds or allege that the judgment has already been satisfied. Courts in Warsaw and Kraków handle these applications within two to four months.

What are the most common mistakes that stall enforcement?

Three mistakes account for the majority of failed or delayed enforcement proceedings under Brussels I bis in Poland. Understanding them in advance cuts the risk of joining that group. Each mistake has a specific procedural consequence – and some are irreversible once the debtor has been alerted to the creditor's intentions.

The first mistake is delay. Brussels I bis gives debtors the right to apply to a Polish court to refuse enforcement on specific grounds. More practically, a debtor who learns that enforcement is coming has time to move assets. Polish corporate law allows asset transfers within a group of companies that, while potentially challengeable, take months to unwind. Starting enforcement within 30 days of obtaining the certificate is the standard we recommend.

The second mistake is selecting the wrong bailiff jurisdiction. Poland has over 2,000 licensed bailiffs. Creditors sometimes instruct a bailiff in the debtor's registered city without checking where the actual assets are located. A bailiff in Warsaw cannot directly seize a bank account held at a branch in Gdańsk without a separate referral. Asset-tracing through the KRS, the Land and Mortgage Register (Księga Wieczysta), and the CEIDG business register before filing saves weeks of misdirected effort.

The third mistake is ignoring interest and costs. A judgment for EUR 500,000 principal may carry contractual or statutory interest that has accrued for two or three years. The Annex I certificate must reflect the full enforceable amount including interest to the date of certification. Creditors who present an incomplete certificate forfeit accrued interest – an irreversible loss that cannot be corrected after enforcement begins.

We obtained interim protective measures for a Dutch technology company whose Polish counterparty had begun transferring receivables to a related entity in Lower Silesia (spring 2026). The measures froze assets worth over EUR 3m within 48 hours of the application. Acting before formal enforcement prevented the debtor from completing the transfer.

How do three business scenarios play out under Brussels I bis?

The Brussels I bis framework applies uniformly across commercial creditors, but the practical enforcement strategy differs sharply depending on the debtor's asset profile. Three scenarios illustrate the decision points: a manufacturing supplier pursuing a product-liability judgment, an IT services company chasing unpaid invoices, and a foreign investor enforcing a contractual damages award against a Polish joint-venture partner.

Manufacturing supplier (Silesia, EUR 800,000 judgment). The debtor owns machinery and a leasehold warehouse. Bank accounts show moderate balances. The optimal sequence here is simultaneous bank account seizure and machinery seizure. Bank seizure produces immediate cash; machinery seizure creates leverage for settlement. The bailiff's fee for enforcement against movables is calculated as a percentage of the recovered amount – typically 15% of the recovered sum, subject to a maximum set by statute. Expect three to five months from certificate to first recovery.

IT services company (Warsaw, PLN 1.2m judgment). The debtor is an asset-light software company. Its main assets are receivables from clients and intellectual property. Receivable seizure is the primary tool. The bailiff notifies the debtor's clients of the seizure, and those clients must pay the bailiff directly rather than the debtor. This is highly effective where the debtor has ongoing contracts. IP enforcement is more complex and may require a separate court application to value and sell the IP assets.

Foreign investor (Małopolska, EUR 2m damages award). The debtor holds real estate. Real estate enforcement through the Polish courts takes the longest but yields the largest recoveries. The creditor registers a mortgage on the debtor's property through the Land and Mortgage Register, then applies for a judicial auction. Auctions in Małopolska are currently scheduled within nine to fourteen months of the enforcement application. For guidance on parallel enforcement strategies where the judgment originates from France, the step-by-step analysis at enforcing a France judgment in Poland covers the procedural overlap in detail.

For companies whose disputes arise from cross-border commercial relationships – including those involving sanctions compliance issues or KIO appeal outcomes – the enforcement stage is the moment when procedural precision pays off. See also our analysis of dispute resolution for Spain companies doing business in Poland for a comparative perspective on enforcement timelines across EU jurisdictions.

What should creditors prepare before instructing a Polish bailiff?

Preparation before filing the enforcement application determines how quickly the bailiff can act. A well-prepared file means the bailiff issues the first seizure notice within three to five business days. A poorly prepared file means repeated requests for supplementary documents – each adding one to two weeks to the timeline. The checklist below covers the minimum required documents and the pre-filing intelligence that separates effective enforcement from procedural delay.

Original enforceable judgment (certified copy accepted)
Annex I certificate from the court of origin
Certified Polish translation of the operative part of the judgment
Power of attorney for the instructing lawyer
Asset-tracing report: KRS extract, Land and Mortgage Register search, CEIDG printout

Asset-tracing is not optional. The KRS extract confirms the debtor's registered address, share capital, and registered directors. The Land and Mortgage Register search identifies real property and existing encumbrances. CEIDG data applies to sole traders and reveals business addresses and registered activities. Together, these three searches take one to two business days and cost under PLN 200 in official fees.

Creditors should also consider whether to apply for interim protective measures (zabezpieczenie) before or simultaneously with the enforcement application. Interim measures can freeze assets within 24 to 48 hours under an ex parte application to the district court. They are particularly valuable where the debtor is a Polish subsidiary of a foreign group with the capacity to transfer assets quickly. The standard for granting interim measures requires the creditor to demonstrate both a credible claim and a risk of enforcement being frustrated – a threshold that a foreign judgment, by definition, satisfies on the first limb.

One further consideration: Brussels I bis does not cover arbitration awards. A Warsaw arbitration award from the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej) requires enforcement through the New York Convention pathway, not the Brussels I bis route. Creditors holding both a court judgment and an arbitral award against the same debtor should sequence enforcement to maximise asset coverage. For context on how asset-protection structures interact with enforcement, the analysis of family foundations in Poland illustrates how Polish law segregates assets – relevant where the debtor is a natural person or family-controlled entity.

Creditors who have invested in obtaining a foreign judgment should not allow that investment to stall at the Polish border. The Brussels I bis pathway is direct, but it rewards preparation and speed. A debtor who learns enforcement is coming has 30 days to raise formal objections – and informal options to complicate recovery before that clock even starts.

For a tailored enforcement strategy covering asset-tracing, bailiff selection, and interim measures, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does Brussels I bis enforcement typically take in Poland from certificate to first recovery?

A: For bank account seizure, first recovery can occur within four to eight weeks of instructing the bailiff, assuming the debtor holds sufficient funds and does not successfully challenge enforcement. Real estate enforcement takes considerably longer – between nine and twenty-four months depending on auction scheduling and any court proceedings. The total timeline is driven primarily by the debtor's asset type and whether opposition proceedings are filed. Early asset-tracing reduces wasted time on enforcement against assets that do not exist or are already encumbered.

Q: Can a Polish debtor challenge the merits of the foreign judgment during enforcement?

A: No. Under Brussels I bis, Polish courts cannot review the substance of the foreign judgment. The debtor may apply to refuse or suspend enforcement only on specific grounds: manifest incompatibility with Polish public policy, breach of the debtor's right to be heard in the original proceedings, or irreconcilability with an earlier Polish or EU judgment on the same subject matter. These grounds are interpreted narrowly. A debtor who lost on the merits in Frankfurt cannot re-argue the case in Warsaw – that pathway is closed under the Regulation.

Q: What does enforcement under Brussels I bis cost in Poland, and who pays?

A: The main cost items are the bailiff's fee (calculated as a percentage of the recovered sum, typically 15%, subject to statutory limits), translation costs (PLN 1,000 to PLN 3,000 for a standard judgment), legal representation fees (variable, but fixed-fee arrangements are standard for straightforward enforcement), and court fees if interim measures are sought (a percentage of the claim value, minimum PLN 100). Polish procedural law allows the successful creditor to recover enforcement costs from the debtor. In practice, recovery of costs depends on the debtor having sufficient assets above the principal debt – which is why asset-tracing before filing is the first step, not an afterthought.

Specific enforcement situations – particularly those involving sanctions compliance, KIO appeal outcomes, or debtors with cross-border asset structures – require analysis that goes beyond the standard procedure. To discuss your situation with a dispute lawyer in Warsaw, 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 cross-border judgment enforcement, commercial litigation, and arbitration in Poland. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.