Cross-border judgment enforcement – Brussels I bis

A German supplier wins a court judgment against its Polish distributor in Munich. The distributor has assets in Poland – bank accounts, receivables, machinery. The supplier now needs that judgment to produce legal effect on Polish territory. That is where Brussels I bis enters the picture.

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – known as Brussels I bis – allows a judgment issued in one EU Member State to be enforced in another without any intermediate exequatur procedure. In Poland, the judgment creditor files directly with the district court (sąd rejonowy) at the debtor's domicile or place of asset location, attaching a certified copy of the foreign judgment and a standard certificate from the issuing court. Enforcement can begin within weeks of filing, provided the documents are in order.

This guide walks through the full procedure step by step: which documents are required, how long each stage takes, what courts are involved, and where the process most commonly breaks down. Three business scenarios – a manufacturing creditor, an IT services provider, and a foreign investor – illustrate how the rules apply in practice.

What does Brussels I bis actually change for creditors enforcing in Poland?

Before Brussels I bis took effect in January 2015, enforcing an EU judgment in Poland required a separate exequatur proceeding – a formal court declaration that the foreign judgment was enforceable on Polish territory. That step has been abolished. The judgment creditor now proceeds directly to enforcement, skipping the recognition stage entirely. This cuts weeks, sometimes months, from the timeline.

The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) and the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) are not directly involved in judgment enforcement. However, KRS records are used to locate the debtor's registered seat and identify assets held through corporate structures. The enforcement authority itself is the bailiff (komornik sądowy), supervised by the district court.

The practical change is significant. A creditor holding a judgment from a court in France, Germany, the Netherlands, or any other EU Member State can present that judgment directly to a Polish bailiff – together with the Article 53 certificate issued by the originating court – and request enforcement measures. No Polish court needs to confirm enforceability first. The debtor may only challenge enforcement on a narrow set of grounds listed in the Regulation: manifest public policy violations, breach of due process, or irreconcilability with a Polish judgment.

One figure matters here: the debtor has 30 days from service of the enforcement documents to raise an objection under the Regulation's refusal-of-enforcement mechanism. Missing that window forfeits most procedural defences. That is an irreversible consequence creditors should communicate clearly before the debtor realises the clock has started.

What documents are required to start enforcement in Poland?

The filing package is compact but strictly regulated. Missing a single element causes the bailiff to suspend proceedings and return the file to court – a delay that can stretch to six weeks. Assemble everything before filing.

The core documents are:

A certified copy of the foreign judgment, bearing the court's official seal
The Article 53 certificate (standard form) issued by the originating court, confirming enforceability
A certified Polish translation of both documents, prepared by a sworn translator (tłumacz przysięgły)
A written enforcement application addressed to the competent district court or directly to the bailiff
Proof of the debtor's address or asset location in Poland (KRS extract, land register excerpt, or bank account information)

The translation requirement is the most common source of delay. Sworn translations cost between PLN 150 and PLN 400 per page and take three to ten working days depending on volume. For a 40-page German commercial judgment, budget at least two weeks and PLN 8,000 to PLN 12,000 in translation fees alone. Plan for this before the filing deadline approaches.

Once the package is complete, the creditor files with the district court (sąd rejonowy) in whose territory the debtor's assets are located – or, for monetary claims, directly with the bailiff. The court issues a clause of enforceability (klauzula wykonalności) within seven to fourteen days. That clause transforms the foreign judgment into a Polish enforcement title. The bailiff can then levy bank accounts, seize receivables, or initiate real estate enforcement – sometimes within 48 hours of receiving instructions.

We secured enforcement of a Dutch commercial judgment for a logistics client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), completing the full process from document filing to first bank account levy in 22 days.

How do the three main business scenarios play out in practice?

Brussels I bis operates differently depending on the nature of the claim, the debtor's asset profile, and the urgency of recovery. Three scenarios illustrate the range.

Manufacturing creditor. A Czech machinery supplier holds a Prague Commercial Court judgment for EUR 380,000 against a Polish buyer. The buyer owns a warehouse in Silesia and holds receivables from three Polish retailers. The creditor files for enforcement of the judgment at the district court in Gliwice, attaches KRS extracts identifying the buyer's corporate structure, and instructs the bailiff to levy the retail receivables first. Receivable enforcement typically produces payment faster than real estate – often within 60 days of the bailiff's first notification to the third-party debtor.

IT services provider. A Swedish SaaS company holds a Stockholm judgment for EUR 95,000 against a Warsaw-based client. The debtor has no real property but maintains active bank accounts. The creditor files directly with a Warsaw bailiff, attaches the Article 53 certificate and sworn translation, and requests a bank account search. Polish bailiffs can query the Central Register of Bank Accounts (Centralny Rejestr Rachunków Bankowych, CRRB) directly, identifying all accounts within days. Funds are frozen on receipt of the bailiff's instruction.

Foreign investor. A Dutch holding company holds a judgment from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal against its former Polish joint-venture partner for EUR 1.2m. The debtor has transferred several assets to affiliated entities. Here, enforcement intersects with dispute resolution strategy for companies doing business in Poland: the creditor may need to pursue Paulian action (skarga pauliańska) alongside enforcement to reverse fraudulent transfers. That parallel litigation adds six to eighteen months but may be the only route to full recovery.

Where does enforcement most commonly fail – and how can creditors protect themselves?

Brussels I bis is efficient when the debtor cooperates or when assets are readily identifiable. It breaks down in three predictable ways.

First, the debtor conceals or transfers assets between the judgment date and the enforcement filing. Polish law allows creditors to request interim measures (zabezpieczenie) from a Polish court even before enforcement begins – and, in cross-border cases, even before the foreign judgment becomes final. Acting within 14 days of a judgment is generally fast enough to prevent asset dissipation. Waiting longer forfeits that protection and may leave the creditor pursuing empty shells.

Second, the debtor raises a public policy objection under the Regulation. Polish courts have accepted this defence in a small number of cases involving judgments that lacked adequate reasoning or were issued without the debtor being properly served. The defence is narrow, but it suspends enforcement while the court considers it – typically for two to four months. Creditors should verify at the outset that the originating proceedings met Polish standards for due process.

Third, the debtor initiates insolvency proceedings in Poland. Once restructuring or bankruptcy is opened by the District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw (Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy) – the most active insolvency court in Poland – individual enforcement is automatically stayed. The creditor becomes an ordinary creditor in the insolvency estate, which may recover only a fraction of the claim. Monitoring the debtor's financial position and filing early is the only reliable protection. For more on data-driven debtor monitoring, see our note on UODO enforcement trends, which illustrates how public register data can signal financial distress.

Our team obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 3m for a Belgian investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), filed within nine days of the foreign judgment being issued.

Sanctions compliance is a separate but related risk. Where the debtor is subject to EU or US sanctions, enforcing a judgment against frozen assets raises specific authorisation requirements. A dispute lawyer handling cross-border enforcement must check the sanctions register before filing enforcement instructions – failure to do so creates personal liability for the creditor's representatives.

What is the step-by-step timeline and cost structure?

Creditors benefit from mapping the procedure against realistic timelines and cost estimates before deciding whether to enforce in Poland or pursue alternative recovery routes.

The standard enforcement sequence runs as follows:

Week 1–2: Obtain certified copy of judgment and Article 53 certificate from the issuing court; commission sworn translations
Week 2–3: File enforcement application with the competent district court or bailiff; pay court fee (currently PLN 200 for monetary claims below PLN 500,000)
Week 3–5: Court issues enforceability clause; bailiff receives file and issues first enforcement notices
Week 5–10: Bank account levies or receivable attachments take effect; debtor notified
Week 10–20: Funds transferred to creditor's account or enforcement of real property begins (real estate enforcement takes three to twelve months)

Total legal costs for a straightforward monetary enforcement – translations, court fee, bailiff commission (up to 15% of recovered amount, capped at PLN 50,000 per enforcement title), and legal fees – typically range from PLN 15,000 to PLN 45,000 for claims between EUR 50,000 and EUR 500,000. Complex cases involving asset tracing or insolvency risk run higher.

For enforcement of a judgment from a non-EU country – Ukraine, the United States, or Switzerland, for example – Brussels I bis does not apply. The creditor must commence a separate recognition proceeding under Polish private international law or the applicable bilateral treaty. That procedure takes four to twelve months and requires a full court hearing. See our dedicated guide on enforcing a Slovak judgment in Poland for a comparative view of how the exequatur framework operates alongside Brussels I bis.

A decision matrix summarises the choice: EU judgment + identifiable assets = Brussels I bis direct enforcement (weeks, low cost). EU judgment + concealed assets = Brussels I bis + Paulian action (months, medium cost). Non-EU judgment = recognition proceeding + enforcement (four to twelve months, higher cost). Arbitral award = New York Convention route, separate procedure.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does Brussels I bis apply to arbitral awards issued in EU Member States?

A: No. Arbitration is expressly excluded from the scope of Brussels I bis. An arbitral award – even one issued in Germany or France – must be enforced in Poland under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. That route requires a separate recognition application to the Polish court, which typically takes three to eight months. Arbitration Poland practitioners should plan for this additional step from the outset.

Q: How long does the debtor have to challenge enforcement, and what happens if the deadline is missed?

A: Under the Regulation, the debtor may apply to the Polish court for refusal of enforcement within 30 days of being served with the enforcement documents. If the debtor is domiciled outside Poland, the period extends to 60 days from service. Missing this deadline does not automatically preclude all defences, but it forfeits the ability to raise procedural objections based on service irregularities in the originating proceedings. Courts treat late applications with limited sympathy.

Q: Can a KIO appeal or public procurement dispute give rise to a cross-border enforceable judgment?

A: A KIO appeal (odwołanie do Krajowej Izby Odwoławczej) is an administrative review before the National Appeals Chamber and does not produce a civil judgment enforceable under Brussels I bis. However, if a public procurement dispute results in a civil court judgment – for example, a damages claim following an unlawful exclusion – that judgment qualifies as an enforceable title under the Regulation once issued by a Polish court, and can be enforced in other Member States using the same mechanism in reverse.

Specific situations require tailored analysis. If your company holds a foreign judgment and needs to recover assets in Poland – or faces enforcement proceedings as a debtor – the correct strategy depends on asset type, debtor structure, and timing. To receive an expert assessment of your enforcement position, 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 cross-border dispute resolution and judgment enforcement. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.