An Italian furniture manufacturer had supplied a major Polish retail chain for three years without incident. Then, in the spring of 2025, the Polish buyer withheld payment on two consecutive invoices – totalling over EUR 400,000 – citing alleged quality defects that the Italian side firmly disputed. The contract contained a Warsaw arbitration clause, but the Italian company's local representative had no experience with Polish dispute resolution procedures. Every week of inaction was a week closer to a limitation deadline.

Italian companies doing business in Poland have access to both state court litigation and institutional arbitration when commercial disputes arise. The choice of forum depends on the contract's governing law, the arbitration clause (if any), and the urgency of interim relief. Polish civil procedure allows a creditor to obtain a payment order within days, while arbitration at the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (SA KIG) typically resolves commercial disputes within 12 to 18 months.

This case study walks through the background of the dispute, the strategic choices made, the procedural steps taken, and the lessons that apply to any Italian business operating in Poland. The matter has been anonymised in line with client confidentiality obligations.

What was the background to the dispute?

The Italian manufacturer – a mid-sized company based in Lombardy – had entered a framework supply agreement governed by Polish law. The agreement designated the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (SA KIG) as the exclusive dispute resolution forum. Payments were due within 60 days of delivery, and the contract contained no formal defect-notification procedure beyond a general reference to Polish civil law standards.

The Polish buyer raised defect claims only after both invoices had fallen overdue. Under Polish civil law, a buyer who accepts goods without immediate written objection faces significant limitations on later defect claims. The Italian side had delivery confirmations, signed warehouse receipts, and email correspondence showing no contemporaneous complaint. That evidence base shaped the entire strategy.

Two risks were immediate. First, the limitation period under Polish law for commercial claims is three years – but the clock had already been running for over a year. Second, the Polish buyer was reportedly negotiating a sale of its main warehouse. If that transaction closed, the buyer's asset base would shrink materially. Delay was not neutral. It was a direct threat to recovery.

How did the legal strategy address the forum and interim measures?

The contract's arbitration clause was valid and enforceable under Polish law. SA KIG rules allow a claimant to file a request for arbitration and simultaneously apply to a state court – specifically the District Court in Warsaw (Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie) – for interim measures. That dual-track approach was chosen immediately. The interim application sought a freeze on the buyer's bank accounts up to EUR 420,000, filed within five working days of the Italian client's first instruction.

We secured a freezing order protecting assets worth over EUR 420,000 for the Italian manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (spring 2025). The District Court in Warsaw granted the order within 72 hours of filing, before the buyer had any notice. That single step neutralised the asset-dissipation risk entirely.

  • Arbitration request filed with SA KIG citing non-payment and rejecting the defect defence
  • Interim freezing order obtained from the District Court in Warsaw
  • Formal demand letter sent under the Polish Civil Code's provisions on buyer acceptance
  • Evidence package compiled: signed receipts, delivery confirmations, email archive
  • Notification sent to the National Court Register (KRS) monitoring the buyer's corporate status

The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) was not directly involved, as this was a purely commercial matter. However, we checked the buyer's status against publicly available KRS filings to identify any insolvency signals. None were found at that stage. For Italian clients unfamiliar with Polish institutions, understanding the role of the KRS as the primary corporate registry is essential groundwork before any enforcement step.

For a broader view of the procedural framework available to foreign companies, our disputes practice page for Poland sets out the full range of instruments – from payment orders to full arbitration and enforcement.

What did the arbitration process involve?

SA KIG arbitration proceeds in three main phases: constitution of the tribunal, exchange of written submissions, and the hearing. The rules set a default 12-month target for a final award, though complex cases extend beyond that. In this matter, the tribunal was constituted within six weeks of filing. A sole arbitrator was appointed by agreement of the parties, reducing both cost and procedural complexity.

The buyer's defence rested on two arguments: alleged non-conformity of goods and a counterclaim for damages exceeding EUR 80,000. Both required expert evidence. The arbitrator appointed an independent expert from the list maintained by the Regional Court in Warsaw (Sąd Okręgowy), with instructions to assess whether the goods met the contractual specification. The expert's fee was set at PLN 18,000, shared equally pending the award.

The expert report, delivered eight weeks after appointment, found no material non-conformity. The buyer's counterclaim collapsed. The Italian client's claim for the full invoice amount, plus contractual interest accruing at the statutory rate under Polish law, proceeded to a final hearing. The award was rendered four months after the tribunal was constituted – well within the 12-month target.

Enforcement of the award required a separate exequatur step before the District Court in Warsaw. That process took a further six weeks. Once the exequatur order was issued, the freezing order converted automatically into enforcement against the frozen accounts. Full recovery was completed within ten months of the first instruction. For context on how expert evidence functions in Polish proceedings, see our guide on expert witnesses in Polish court proceedings.

What are the transferable lessons for Italian companies in Poland?

Three patterns from this matter recur across disputes involving Italian businesses in Poland. Each carries a direct lesson. First, the absence of a contractual defect-notification procedure created ambiguity that the buyer tried to exploit. Italian companies should insist on a written, time-limited defect-notification clause – typically seven to fourteen days from delivery – in every Polish supply agreement.

Second, interim measures are underused by foreign claimants. Polish civil procedure allows a creditor to freeze assets before the merits are decided, provided there is a credible prima facie claim and a risk of enforcement difficulty. The application costs are modest – court fees for interim applications typically range from PLN 200 to PLN 1,000 depending on the claim value. The protective value is disproportionately large.

Third, arbitration clauses naming SA KIG or the Lewiatan Court of Arbitration are enforceable and well-regarded. But they must be drafted precisely. A clause that names a non-existent institution, or that omits the seat of arbitration, can be challenged. Polish courts have invalidated ambiguous clauses, forcing parties into state court litigation instead – a slower and more public process.

Italian companies considering property acquisition alongside their Polish operations should also review our guide to buying property in Poland as an Italian national, which addresses related cross-border legal considerations including sanctions compliance and KIO appeal procedures in regulated sectors.

The checklist below captures the minimum preparation steps for any Italian company facing a commercial dispute in Poland.

  • Locate the dispute resolution clause and confirm the governing law
  • Identify limitation deadlines – the standard commercial period is three years
  • Assess whether interim asset-freezing measures are warranted before filing
  • Compile contemporaneous evidence: delivery records, correspondence, receipts
  • Verify the counterparty's current KRS status and any insolvency proceedings

Every week without a clear dispute strategy is a week the counterparty can use to restructure its assets or build a paper trail supporting its defence. The lost-opportunity cost of delay in Polish commercial disputes is real and, once a limitation period expires, irreversible.

Your company's specific situation requires a tailored assessment before the procedural window closes. If your Italian business faces a payment dispute, contract claim, or enforcement challenge in Poland – particularly where asset dissipation is a concern – act before the limitation clock forecloses your options.

To discuss how Polish dispute resolution instruments apply to your case, email info@kordeckipartners.com. We will assess your forum options, interim relief prospects, and enforcement strategy at the first consultation.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does commercial arbitration in Poland typically take from filing to award?

A: Arbitration before SA KIG or the Lewiatan Court of Arbitration typically produces a final award within 12 to 18 months of filing. Simpler matters with a sole arbitrator can resolve in under 12 months. Enforcement through the exequatur procedure before a district court adds a further six to ten weeks.

Q: Can an Italian company obtain interim asset protection before the arbitration award is issued?

A: Yes. Polish civil procedure expressly permits a party to apply to the state court for interim measures – including account freezes and asset injunctions – even where the underlying dispute is subject to an arbitration clause. The application must demonstrate a credible claim and a real risk that enforcement will be impossible or materially more difficult without the measure. Court fees for such applications are modest relative to the sums protected.

Q: Is it a misconception that Polish courts are slow and therefore arbitration is always preferable?

A: Partly. Polish state courts have improved significantly in commercial cases, and the payment order procedure (nakaz zapłaty) can produce an enforceable title within days for undisputed debt claims. However, contested commercial litigation in Warsaw can take two to four years at first instance. For disputed cross-border claims above EUR 100,000, arbitration generally offers a faster and more predictable timeline, particularly where the parties have already agreed a valid clause.

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 dispute resolution, arbitration, 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.