A Warsaw-based construction subcontractor had completed 94% of a public infrastructure project when the general contractor terminated the agreement without notice. The subcontractor faced a dual problem: recovering unpaid invoices exceeding PLN 3.5 million and challenging a procurement blacklisting that threatened its entire pipeline of public contracts. Time was critical. Missing the appeal window before the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) would permanently foreclose the procurement remedy.

Polish dispute resolution for domestic companies combines civil litigation before state courts, arbitration under institutional rules, and administrative proceedings before specialist bodies such as the KIO. The choice of forum depends on contract type, urgency, and the nature of the opposing party. Selecting the wrong path – or missing a statutory deadline – can forfeit rights that no subsequent proceeding can recover.

This case study traces how a Warsaw subcontractor recovered its position across three parallel tracks: a KIO appeal, a civil claim before the Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) in Warsaw, and a sanctions-compliance review that had complicated the client's ability to enforce payment. Each track produced transferable lessons for any Polish company facing a multi-front dispute.

What was the background and what made this dispute unusually complex?

The subcontractor – a mid-size civil engineering firm registered with the National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) – had operated under a fixed-price contract awarded through a public tender. The general contractor was a consortium whose lead member had recently been flagged by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) in connection with an unrelated financial irregularity. That flag created a sanctions-compliance question: could the subcontractor continue enforcement steps against a counterparty under regulatory scrutiny without itself incurring liability?

The answer, as our review confirmed, was yes – provided the subcontractor documented its own AML and sanctions-screening procedures carefully. Polish law distinguishes between a counterparty under investigation and one subject to a formal asset freeze. No freeze order had been issued. The subcontractor's exposure was reputational, not legal, but the distinction had to be established quickly. For a broader treatment of AML obligations in this context, see our analysis of AML compliance obligations for Polish companies.

A second complication arose from a blacklisting notice. The contracting authority had entered the subcontractor's data into the public procurement exclusion register, citing alleged deficiencies in performance. That entry, if unchallenged within 10 days, becomes final. The firm had 8 days remaining when it first contacted us. Acting immediately was the only option.

  • Unpaid invoices: PLN 3.5 million across four payment applications
  • KIO appeal window: 10 days from the exclusion decision
  • Sanctions-compliance clearance required before enforcement
  • Arbitration clause in the subcontract: ICC Rules, Warsaw seat

How did the legal strategy address three simultaneous fronts?

We structured the response around sequencing. The KIO appeal came first – not because it was the largest claim, but because missing the deadline would permanently close that track. Civil litigation and arbitration could be filed later; a KIO window cannot be reopened. We filed the appeal within 5 days, challenging the factual basis of the exclusion and requesting interim suspension of the register entry pending the hearing.

The KIO ruled within 15 days (the statutory maximum for standard appeals). It found that the contracting authority had applied the exclusion criteria without adequate documentary support. The register entry was annulled. That outcome did more than protect future tenders: it removed a reputational cloud that had been causing other public clients to hesitate before awarding new work. We secured the annulment of the exclusion entry for this Mazowieckie-region client in spring 2026, preserving access to a forward order book valued at over PLN 12 million.

On the payment track, the subcontract contained an ICC arbitration clause. However, arbitration carries upfront costs and a typical timeline of 12 to 18 months. Given the subcontractor's liquidity position, we applied for interim measures before the Regional Court in Warsaw in parallel. Polish civil procedure allows a court to grant interim payment protection – freezing the debtor's bank accounts or receivables – even where the underlying dispute will be resolved by arbitration. The court granted a freeze over accounts holding approximately PLN 2 million within 7 days of filing.

The sanctions-compliance review ran concurrently. We produced a documented screening memo confirming no applicable asset freeze, which the subcontractor's bank required before processing enforcement-related transactions. That memo took 3 working days to prepare. Without it, the bank would have delayed disbursements by weeks.

What did the arbitration and litigation process reveal?

Once interim measures were secured, the general contractor's position changed. Facing frozen accounts and a lost KIO appeal, the consortium opened settlement discussions within 30 days of the freeze order. The ICC arbitration was commenced formally to preserve the limitation period – Polish law provides a general 3-year limitation for commercial claims – but the hearing was never required.

Settlement was reached at PLN 3.1 million (approximately 89% of the claimed amount), payable in two tranches over 60 days. The discount reflected litigation risk on one disputed invoice, not weakness in the overall position. The interim freeze was lifted upon receipt of the first tranche. Our team obtained the settlement and asset release for this client in the Mazowieckie region (spring 2026), resolving a dispute that had threatened the firm's solvency within four months of instruction.

The process exposed three procedural points that recur in Polish domestic disputes. First, courts grant interim measures quickly when the applicant can show a credible claim and a genuine risk of asset dissipation – two conditions that well-documented construction payment claims almost always satisfy. Second, arbitration clauses do not prevent Polish courts from granting interim relief; the two tracks are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Third, the existence of a parallel regulatory investigation against a counterparty does not automatically suspend enforcement rights, but it must be assessed before filing. Companies that skip the compliance review risk enforcement actions being challenged or delayed.

For context on how cross-border enforcement interacts with these procedures, see our step-by-step guide on enforcing a Slovakia judgment in Poland.

What lessons apply to other Polish companies facing disputes?

The most transferable lesson is sequencing. Polish dispute resolution offers multiple instruments – KIO appeals, civil interim measures, arbitration, and administrative challenges – but each has its own deadline and cost profile. Activating them in the wrong order wastes resources and can permanently close faster remedies. A 10-day KIO window cannot be extended. A 7-day court hearing on interim measures requires a fully prepared application on day one.

The second lesson concerns the interaction between sanctions compliance and enforcement. Any Polish company whose counterparty is under regulatory scrutiny – whether by the KNF, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, UOKiK), or a foreign authority – should obtain a written compliance clearance before filing enforcement steps. The clearance takes days, not weeks, but its absence can stall proceedings for months.

The third lesson is about leverage. Interim asset freezes are among the most powerful tools in Polish civil procedure. They shift negotiating dynamics immediately. A debtor whose accounts are frozen faces operational disruption that often makes settlement more attractive than protracted litigation. Companies that understand this use interim measures proactively, not as a last resort.

What to prepare before instructing dispute counsel in Poland:

  • All contracts, amendments, and correspondence with the counterparty
  • Documentary evidence of performance (delivery notes, site records, sign-offs)
  • AML and sanctions screening records for the counterparty
  • Evidence of the counterparty's assets in Poland (bank accounts, receivables, property)
  • Any prior regulatory or procurement decisions involving the counterparty

For companies that have faced similar disputes involving Italian counterparties operating in Poland, our related analysis of dispute resolution for Italy companies doing business in Poland covers the cross-border dimension in detail.

The specific facts of your dispute determine which instruments are available and in what order they should be deployed. Acting without that analysis risks forfeiting remedies that cannot be recovered later.

To receive an expert assessment of your dispute position in Poland, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does a KIO appeal take, and what does it cost?

A: The National Appeals Chamber must issue a ruling within 15 days of the appeal filing for standard cases. The filing fee ranges from PLN 7,500 to PLN 15,000 depending on the contract value. The KIO can annul procurement decisions, order re-evaluation of tenders, or dismiss the appeal – there is no middle-ground partial remedy, so the application must be technically precise from the outset.

Q: Can a Polish court grant interim measures if the contract has an arbitration clause?

A: Yes. Polish civil procedure expressly permits state courts to grant interim measures – including asset freezes and injunctions – even where the parties have agreed to resolve their underlying dispute by arbitration. The court's interim jurisdiction runs in parallel with the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. This misconception, that an arbitration clause removes court interim-measure jurisdiction, is one of the most commercially costly errors we encounter in practice.

Q: What is the limitation period for commercial payment claims in Poland?

A: The general limitation period under Polish civil law is 3 years for commercial claims between businesses. For claims arising from specific contract types – such as construction services – shorter periods may apply. Limitation runs from the date the claim became due. Commencing arbitration or filing a court claim interrupts the limitation period; a letter of demand alone does not.

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 sanctions compliance. 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.