Dispute resolution for Sweden companies doing business in Poland

A Swedish furniture components supplier discovered, in the spring of 2025, that its Polish distributor had ceased payments on three consecutive invoices totalling over EUR 180,000. The distributor cited force majeure. The Swedish company had no Polish legal counsel, no arbitration clause in its contract, and no clear picture of whether Warsaw courts or Stockholm arbitration should govern the dispute.

Swedish companies doing business in Poland have access to two principal dispute resolution tracks: litigation before Polish state courts and arbitration before recognised institutions such as the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej, SA KIG). The choice between them turns on the contract wording, the size of the claim, and whether interim asset protection is needed. A foreign claimant without a valid arbitration clause defaults to Polish court jurisdiction when the debtor is domiciled in Poland.

This case study traces how that Swedish supplier resolved its dispute, recovered the bulk of its claim, and left with a contract template that protects future transactions. The lessons apply broadly to Swedish exporters, manufacturers, and service providers active in the Polish market.

What was the background to the dispute?

The supplier – a mid-sized Swedish manufacturer of upholstered furniture components – had traded with its Polish distributor for four years under a framework supply agreement. The agreement was governed by Swedish law and contained a vague dispute resolution clause referring to "competent courts." No arbitration seat was specified. When the distributor stopped paying in early 2025, outstanding invoices had accumulated over a six-month period. The total claim, including contractual interest, approached EUR 200,000.

The distributor's force majeure argument rested on alleged supply disruptions caused by a third-party logistics provider. Our initial review found the argument weak. Polish contract law imposes a strict standard for force majeure: the event must be external, unforeseeable, and impossible to overcome. A logistics delay that the distributor could have mitigated by switching carriers did not meet that threshold. That assessment shaped the entire litigation strategy.

We also ran a preliminary sanctions compliance check – an important step given the broader context of EU export controls active since 2022. The distributor had no sanctioned beneficial owners and no links to restricted jurisdictions. That cleared the way for normal debt recovery without the additional layer of review described in our article on the EU sanctions framework impact on Polish businesses.

How did the legal strategy address jurisdictional complexity?

The absence of a clear arbitration clause meant the case would proceed before the District Court in Warsaw (Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie). Under EU Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments, a Swedish claimant may sue a Polish defendant in the Polish courts at the defendant's domicile. That rule applied here. The Swedish company's choice of Swedish law in the contract was valid for substantive matters, but Polish procedural law governed the litigation itself.

We filed for a payment order (nakaz zapłaty) under the Polish Code of Civil Procedure's expedited payment order procedure. This track is available for monetary claims supported by documentary evidence – invoices, delivery confirmations, and the signed framework agreement. The court issues the order without a hearing. The debtor then has two weeks to file an objection. If no objection is filed, the order becomes enforceable within that period. That 14-day window is a critical juncture: it determines whether the case accelerates to enforcement or shifts to full adversarial proceedings.

The distributor filed an objection, invoking the force majeure defence and a counterclaim for alleged defects in delivered goods. We had anticipated both moves. Our response documented the delivery records, the logistics company's own statements contradicting the force majeure claim, and quality inspection certificates pre-dating the payment default. We also cross-referenced the compliance programme structures discussed in our guidance on compliance programme design for Sweden subsidiaries in Poland, which helped establish that the Swedish parent had maintained proper documentation throughout the relationship.

We secured interim asset protection – a freezing order over the distributor's bank accounts up to EUR 200,000 – within three weeks of filing. Asset freezes in Poland require showing a credible claim and a genuine risk of dissipation. The distributor's deteriorating financial position, evidenced by National Court Register (KRS) filings, satisfied both conditions. That measure prevented the distributor from moving funds offshore while the case proceeded.

What did the process reveal about dispute resolution in Poland?

The full proceedings before the District Court in Warsaw lasted approximately eight months. That timeline is broadly consistent with commercial litigation in Warsaw for claims of this size. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) was not involved – this was a purely contractual dispute – but the KRS records and the company's published financial statements proved essential to the asset-freeze application. Swedish companies should factor an eight-to-twelve-month timeline into their planning when litigation before state courts is the likely track.

We obtained a judgment in favour of the Swedish claimant for the full invoice amount plus statutory interest and procedural costs. The distributor's force majeure and defect counterclaims were dismissed. The court applied Swedish substantive law as stipulated in the contract, which was a positive outcome: Swedish law's treatment of payment obligations aligned with our client's position. Enforcing the judgment required a separate enforcement order, processed by a court bailiff (komornik sądowy) within six weeks of the judgment becoming final.

We recovered EUR 174,000 for the Swedish manufacturer – a Mazowieckie-region client – by autumn 2025, net of enforcement costs. The remaining gap reflected partial satisfaction from the frozen account balance. That result compared favourably to the alternative of Stockholm arbitration, which would have required a separate recognition and enforcement step in Poland under the New York Convention, adding three to six months and additional costs.

For context on enforcing foreign judgments in Poland, the procedural steps mirror those described in our analysis of enforcing a Slovakia judgment in Poland step by step – the same exequatur logic applies to Swedish judgments rendered outside the EU framework.

What are the transferable lessons for Swedish businesses?

This matter produced four practical lessons that apply to any Swedish company doing business in Poland – whether in manufacturing, IT services, or distribution.

• Draft arbitration clauses precisely: name the institution (SA KIG or the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), the seat, the language, and the number of arbitrators. A vague clause defaults to state courts.
• Include a governing law clause that expressly covers both substantive and procedural matters – courts will otherwise apply Polish procedural rules regardless of the chosen substantive law.
• Maintain delivery documentation, quality certificates, and signed acceptance records for every transaction. These documents are the foundation of a payment order application.
• Monitor counterparty financial health through KRS filings at least quarterly. Early warning allows a pre-emptive interim measure before assets are dissipated.
• Run a sanctions compliance check before initiating recovery proceedings. Engaging a sanctioned entity – even inadvertently – creates regulatory exposure for the Swedish parent.

The KIO appeal mechanism (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza – National Appeals Chamber) is a separate track relevant to Swedish companies participating in Polish public procurement. It offers a fast-track review of procurement decisions within 15 days. That route did not arise in this matter, but Swedish exporters active in Polish public tenders should treat KIO as a primary dispute tool rather than a last resort. A dispute lawyer with procurement experience is essential for that track.

Arbitration in Poland is a viable alternative for higher-value disputes, particularly where confidentiality matters or where the counterparty is a state-owned entity. SA KIG proceedings typically conclude within 12 to 18 months. For claims below EUR 100,000, however, the payment order route through state courts is usually faster and less expensive.

Swedish companies should also note that Polish courts apply EU sanctions regulations directly. Any dispute involving a counterparty with potential sanctions exposure requires an upfront compliance assessment. Ignoring that step risks freezing the recovery process at an advanced stage – an irreversible consequence that forfeits months of litigation effort.

The specific facts of your dispute determine which track delivers the best outcome. A manufacturing client with long-term Polish relationships may prioritise mediation before litigation. An IT services company with a one-off contract may prefer the speed of the payment order procedure. A foreign investor with a complex joint venture dispute may require arbitration to maintain confidentiality and enforce internationally.

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

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does commercial litigation in Warsaw typically take for a claim of EUR 100,000 to EUR 300,000?

A: First-instance proceedings at the District Court in Warsaw generally take between eight and fourteen months for claims in that range, assuming the case proceeds to full adversarial hearings. If the defendant does not contest a payment order within 14 days, enforcement can begin within six to eight weeks of filing. Appeals extend the timeline by a further six to twelve months.

Q: Is it a misconception that a Swedish governing law clause means Swedish courts have jurisdiction?

A: Yes – this is a common misunderstanding. A governing law clause determines which country's substantive law applies to interpret the contract. It does not determine which court has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in disputes involving a Polish defendant is governed by EU Regulation 1215/2012, which generally points to Polish courts unless a valid arbitration or jurisdiction clause specifies otherwise.

Q: Can a Swedish company obtain an asset freeze in Poland before a judgment is issued?

A: Yes. Polish procedural law allows a claimant to apply for interim measures, including a bank account freeze, at any stage of proceedings – including before filing the main claim. The applicant must demonstrate a credible legal basis for the claim and a genuine risk that the debtor will dissipate assets. The court typically rules on the application within one to three weeks. Security can be set at the full claim value plus anticipated costs.

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 – including Swedish companies active in the Polish market – 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.