A French industrial equipment manufacturer had supplied machinery to a Polish distributor under a long-term framework agreement. When the distributor stopped paying invoices – citing alleged product defects – the French company faced a familiar dilemma: pursue litigation in Poland, push for arbitration, or accept a commercial settlement that would leave a significant sum unrecovered. The clock was ticking. Under Polish civil procedure, certain limitation periods run as short as two years for commercial claims, and missing them forfeits the right to sue entirely.
French companies doing business in Poland have access to both state court litigation in Warsaw and specialist arbitration Poland forums, including the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej, SA KIG). The choice of forum shapes the entire dispute – timelines, enforceability, and cost. A well-structured strategy, launched before limitation periods expire, typically resolves commercial claims within 12 to 24 months.
This case study traces how a French industrial client moved from a deadlocked commercial dispute to a favourable outcome in Poland. It covers the background, the forum and strategy choices made, the process that followed, and the lessons that transfer to other French businesses operating in Polish markets.
What was the background to the dispute?
The French manufacturer had supplied specialised processing equipment worth approximately EUR 1.8 million to a Polish distributor registered with the National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS). The framework agreement was governed by Polish law and contained a general jurisdiction clause pointing to Polish courts – a common but often underexamined feature of cross-border supply contracts. When invoices went unpaid for six months, the French side issued a formal demand. The Polish party responded with a counterclaim alleging defects in three machine units.
The counterclaim was, in our assessment, partly tactical. Two of the three alleged defects had never been raised during the acceptance protocol signed at delivery. That procedural gap – the signed acceptance record – became the cornerstone of the defence. We also identified that the distributor had resold two of the machines to end customers, which significantly undermined the defect narrative. The French client had not previously worked with a dispute lawyer in Poland and had been managing correspondence directly, which had inadvertently created some ambiguity in the paper trail.
Early assessment flagged three risks: the two-year limitation window, the absence of an arbitration clause (ruling out SA KIG and other arbitration Poland forums), and the need to secure interim measures before the distributor's assets could be moved. We filed a motion for asset preservation at the District Court in Warsaw (Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie) within the first three weeks of engagement.
How did we structure the litigation strategy?
With no arbitration clause in the contract, state court litigation in Warsaw was the only viable route. The District Court in Warsaw has jurisdiction over commercial disputes exceeding PLN 75,000, and the case value – converted at the applicable exchange rate – comfortably met that threshold. We filed the statement of claim within 45 days of the initial instruction, attaching the signed acceptance protocols as primary evidence.
The strategy rested on three pillars. First, we moved immediately to secure the claim through interim asset preservation, freezing the distributor's bank account for an amount matching the outstanding invoices. Second, we built the substantive case around the acceptance documentation, demonstrating that the alleged defects were raised only after non-payment became a dispute. Third, we engaged a technical expert accredited by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority's oversight framework – not a financial matter, but the accreditation standard signals credibility to Polish courts – to assess the machines independently.
Sanctions compliance was not a primary issue in this matter. However, we conducted a standard check against EU and Polish sanctions registers at the outset, given the French client's obligations under EU law. The distributor presented no flags. For French companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, that preliminary sanctions compliance step is now standard practice, regardless of whether the counterparty appears low-risk.
We also reviewed whether a KIO appeal procedure – the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) used in public procurement disputes – was relevant. It was not applicable here, as the distributor was a private entity. However, French companies that supply to Polish public contracting authorities should be aware that the KIO appeal route runs on a 10-day deadline and operates entirely separately from civil litigation.
What did the process reveal, and what were the outcomes?
We secured interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 1.6 million for the French manufacturer in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The court granted the preservation order within 14 days of filing, citing the prima facie strength of the documentary evidence. That order changed the negotiating dynamics immediately. Within six weeks of the order being served, the distributor's legal team opened settlement discussions.
The litigation Warsaw process itself ran in parallel. The District Court scheduled the first hearing for approximately four months after filing. Polish commercial proceedings at first instance typically run between 12 and 36 months depending on complexity; the availability of strong documentary evidence compresses that range. By the time the first hearing date arrived, the parties had reached a negotiated resolution. The distributor agreed to pay EUR 1.55 million – roughly 86 percent of the principal claim – in three instalments over 90 days, with the counterclaim formally withdrawn.
Our team also obtained a favourable costs order covering a substantial portion of the French client's legal fees, an outcome that is not automatic in Polish proceedings and depends on the proportionality of costs to the claim value. The resolution was recorded in a court-approved settlement agreement (ugoda sądowa), which carries the force of an enforceable title under Polish civil procedure – a practical advantage over a purely commercial settlement letter.
What lessons transfer to other French companies?
The most transferable lesson is timing. French businesses often delay engaging Polish counsel, hoping that commercial pressure will resolve the matter. In this case, a six-month delay in escalation had already consumed a significant portion of the two-year limitation window. Acting within 30 days of a payment default – or any material breach – preserves all procedural options. Waiting forfeits them progressively.
Contract drafting is the second lesson. The absence of an arbitration clause removed the SA KIG route, which can offer faster resolution for disputes between EUR 500,000 and EUR 5 million. French companies entering Polish distribution, supply, or joint venture agreements should consider whether an arbitration Poland clause – designating SA KIG or the Vienna International Arbitral Centre – better serves their enforcement needs than a general court jurisdiction clause.
For further context on protecting intellectual assets in cross-border Polish engagements, see our analysis of IP protection strategy for France tech companies in Poland. For French companies that already hold a judgment from a French court and need to enforce it in Poland, our step-by-step guide on enforcing a foreign judgment in Poland covers the recognition procedure under EU Regulation 1215/2012. A broader overview of our dispute resolution capabilities for international clients is available at our disputes practice page.
- Engage Polish dispute counsel within 30 days of a material payment default
- Audit your contract for an arbitration clause before a dispute arises
- File for interim asset preservation early – the order changes negotiating dynamics
- Collect and preserve signed acceptance protocols and delivery records from day one
- Run a sanctions compliance check at the outset of any enforcement action
The economics of early action are clear. Interim measures cost a fraction of the claim value. A well-timed preservation order – filed before assets are dissipated – often produces a settlement that covers both the principal and a significant share of legal costs. Delay, by contrast, can mean chasing an empty shell.
Specific circumstances vary significantly. The strategy that worked here – documentary strength, early preservation, parallel negotiation – depended on facts that may not replicate exactly. French companies facing disputes in Poland should obtain a case-specific assessment before committing to a forum or procedural route.
To receive an expert assessment of your dispute situation in Poland, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: How long does commercial litigation in Warsaw typically take at first instance?
A: First-instance commercial proceedings at the District Court in Warsaw typically run between 12 and 36 months, depending on the complexity of the evidence and whether expert witnesses are required. Cases supported by strong documentary evidence – signed protocols, written correspondence, delivery records – tend to resolve faster. Settlement, as in this case, can occur at any stage and often shortens the overall timeline to under 12 months.
Q: Can a French company enforce a French court judgment in Poland without re-litigating the case?
A: Yes. Under EU Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments, a French court judgment is directly enforceable in Poland without a separate declaration of enforceability for most civil and commercial matters. The creditor applies to the Polish court for enforcement, attaching a certified copy of the judgment and a standard certificate issued by the French court. The process typically takes four to eight weeks from application to enforcement order.
Q: Is arbitration always faster and cheaper than Polish state court litigation for cross-border disputes?
A: Not necessarily – this is a common misconception. Arbitration at SA KIG or an international forum can be faster for disputes where both parties cooperate procedurally, but registration fees and arbitrator costs can exceed court filing fees for mid-size claims. For disputes below EUR 300,000, state court litigation in Warsaw is often more cost-efficient. The right choice depends on the contract terms, the counterparty's likely conduct, and the enforcement jurisdictions involved.
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 dispute resolution, commercial litigation, and cross-border enforcement. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. 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.