A Swiss precision-engineering company had supplied specialist components to a Polish distributor under a long-term supply agreement. When the distributor stopped paying – citing alleged defects that had never been raised during two years of smooth deliveries – the Swiss client faced a choice: accept a fraction of what was owed, or pursue recovery through Polish dispute resolution. The amount at stake exceeded EUR 800,000.

Switzerland-based companies doing business in Poland can resolve commercial disputes through Polish state courts, institutional arbitration, or a combination of both. Polish civil procedure allows foreign claimants to obtain interim protective measures within days of filing. Enforcement of Swiss judgments in Poland follows the Lugano Convention framework, which Poland applies through its domestic courts. Acting within the correct procedural windows is essential – delay forfeits protective options that cannot be recovered later.

This case study walks through the background of the dispute, the strategy we developed, the procedural steps taken, and the lessons that any Switzerland-based business should carry into its Polish operations. The matter was resolved in the client's favour within fourteen months.

What was the background to the dispute?

The Swiss company had been exporting components to a Warsaw-registered distributor since 2021. Deliveries ran smoothly for two years. The distributor then withheld payment on three consecutive invoices, totalling just over EUR 800,000, and simultaneously sent a written notice alleging product defects. No defect claim had ever been raised before. The timing suggested a tactical manoeuvre rather than a genuine quality complaint.

The supply agreement contained a governing-law clause selecting Swiss law and a jurisdiction clause pointing to arbitration in Zurich. However, the distributor's Polish counsel argued that the clause was invalid under Polish consumer-protection rules – a plainly wrong argument, since both parties were commercial entities. Still, the challenge had to be addressed before any substantive proceedings could begin. The dispute had cross-border complexity from the outset.

Our team was instructed in autumn 2024. We identified three immediate priorities: securing the client's assets against dissipation, neutralising the jurisdiction challenge, and preserving evidence of the distributor's payment history. We also checked whether any sanctions compliance issues affected the counterparty – a standard step in cross-border matters that occasionally reveals leverage or procedural restrictions.

How did we build the dispute resolution strategy?

The core strategic choice was whether to pursue arbitration in Zurich under the contract or to file in Warsaw. Arbitration offered neutrality and enforceability under the New York Convention. Polish state-court litigation in Warsaw offered speed on interim measures and lower upfront costs. We recommended a two-track approach: file for interim protective measures before the District Court in Warsaw immediately, then commence arbitration in Zurich within thirty days.

Polish civil procedure allows a claimant to apply for a freezing order – zabezpieczenie roszczenia (claim security) – without notifying the debtor in advance. The court must rule within seven days of the application. We filed on day three of our instruction. The District Court in Warsaw issued a freezing order over the distributor's bank accounts within the statutory window, covering the full EUR 800,000 claim. That order was served through the National Court Register (KRS) address before the distributor's counsel could react.

We also conducted a rapid review of the distributor's KRS filings. The review revealed a recent change of registered address and a reduction in share capital. Both are warning signs under Polish insolvency indicators. We flagged these to the client and built a contingency plan for enforcement if the distributor entered restructuring proceedings.

  • Interim freezing order obtained within seven days of filing
  • Jurisdiction challenge rebutted within four weeks
  • Arbitration commenced in Zurich within thirty days of instruction
  • Evidence of payment history preserved via notarial protocol
  • KRS monitoring activated for early insolvency warning

We secured interim protection covering assets worth over EUR 800,000 for the Swiss client's Polish distribution dispute in Mazowieckie region (autumn 2024). That early action defined the entire trajectory of the case.

What did the process reveal about litigation in Poland?

The jurisdiction challenge was the first substantive hurdle. The distributor's Polish counsel filed an objection before the District Court in Warsaw, arguing that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. Polish courts apply the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC) when assessing arbitration agreements between commercial parties. The KPC is clear: a written arbitration clause between two businesses is valid. The court dismissed the objection in a hearing held six weeks after filing.

With the jurisdiction question resolved, the arbitration in Zurich proceeded. The arbitral tribunal applied Swiss law to the substantive contract claims. The defect allegation collapsed quickly: the distributor could not produce a single quality-control report, inspection record, or contemporaneous complaint. The tribunal issued an award of EUR 780,000 plus costs within eight months of the first procedural conference.

Enforcing the award in Poland required a separate application to the District Court in Warsaw under the New York Convention. Poland has been a signatory since 1961. The court confirmed the award's enforceability within six weeks. Enforcement against the frozen bank accounts then proceeded through a court-appointed bailiff. The client recovered the full awarded amount before the end of the fourteenth month from our initial instruction.

One procedural detail is worth highlighting for Switzerland-based clients unfamiliar with Polish enforcement. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) has no role in commercial debt recovery. However, if a dispute involves regulated financial instruments or payment services, KNF oversight can affect the timeline. In this matter, the distributor was not regulated, so enforcement moved at standard pace.

What lessons apply to Switzerland companies operating in Poland?

The most transferable lesson is timing. Interim protective measures in Poland are available before formal proceedings conclude – but the window is short. A claimant who waits for a final judgment before thinking about asset protection often finds that the debtor has moved assets beyond reach. Personal liability of directors for dissipating company assets exists under Polish corporate legislation, but pursuing it is slower and more expensive than a timely freezing order.

Contract drafting matters enormously. The jurisdiction clause in this case was well-drafted: it specified arbitration, named the institution, and identified the seat. Vague clauses – "disputes shall be resolved amicably, and if not, by arbitration" – create satellite litigation about the clause itself. Switzerland-based companies should also consider whether their Polish contracts include a choice-of-law clause that clearly selects either Swiss or Polish law. Ambiguity on governing law adds months to any dispute.

For context on enforcement across borders, the process for enforcing a foreign judgment in Poland follows a consistent framework regardless of the originating jurisdiction. Readers can compare the mechanics described here with the procedure set out for enforcing a Slovakia judgment in Poland step-by-step and enforcing a Luxembourg judgment in Poland step-by-step. The Lugano Convention and New York Convention create parallel but distinct pathways, and choosing the right one at the outset saves significant time.

Switzerland companies with Polish employees or contractors face a separate layer of risk. Employment disputes in Poland are heard by dedicated labour courts and operate on different timelines from commercial litigation. A practical overview of the compliance obligations that precede those disputes is available at employment law compliance for Switzerland companies in Poland. Addressing compliance gaps before a dispute arises is always cheaper than defending a claim.

A second matter from this period reinforces the point about early action. We obtained a reversal of a disputed contractual penalty exceeding PLN 1.2m for a Swiss-owned logistics operator in the Silesia region (winter 2024). The key was filing for interim relief on the day the penalty notice arrived – before the counterparty could initiate its own enforcement proceedings.

Swiss companies considering public-procurement contracts in Poland should also be aware that procurement disputes follow a separate track entirely. A KIO appeal – a challenge before the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) – must be filed within ten days of the contested procurement decision. Missing that deadline closes the door permanently. Commercial courts and the KIO operate independently; a dispute lawyer must know which forum applies before drafting the first letter.

The practical checklist for any Switzerland-based company entering a Polish commercial dispute is short but non-negotiable:

  • Assess interim-measure options within the first 48 hours
  • Verify the counterparty's KRS status and recent filings
  • Confirm whether the contract clause selects arbitration or state courts
  • Check sanctions compliance before engaging the counterparty further

Each of these steps takes less time than a single court hearing. Skipping any one of them can make the difference between full recovery and a judgment that cannot be enforced.

Arbitration Poland proceedings and litigation Warsaw filings each carry distinct cost and timeline profiles. Arbitration typically costs more upfront but produces a final award faster in complex cross-border matters. Warsaw state-court litigation is cheaper initially but can extend to three years in contested cases. The right choice depends on the contract, the counterparty, and the urgency of interim protection.

Every dispute also requires a sanctions compliance check. Poland implements EU sanctions regulations directly. If a counterparty or its beneficial owners appear on EU designation lists, engaging in settlement negotiations or accepting payment may itself constitute a violation. This is not a theoretical risk – it has arisen in several Central European matters since 2022.

The specific situation of your company requires a tailored assessment before any procedural step is taken. Choosing the wrong forum or missing an interim-measure deadline can foreclose recovery options that are irreversible.

To receive an expert assessment of your dispute resolution options in Poland, contact info@kordeckipartners.com. If your Switzerland-based company faces a payment dispute, contract breach, or enforcement question in Poland – we will map the available forums, assess interim-measure eligibility, and outline a recovery strategy within 48 hours of instruction.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a Swiss arbitral award be enforced directly in Poland?

A: Yes. Poland has been a party to the New York Convention since 1961, which covers arbitral awards from Switzerland. The enforcing party must apply to the competent District Court in Poland with the original award and arbitration agreement. The court's review is limited to procedural grounds – it does not re-examine the merits. The process typically takes between six and ten weeks from filing the application.

Q: How long does interim asset protection take to obtain in Poland?

A: Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a court must rule on a freezing-order application within seven days of filing. The order can be issued without prior notice to the debtor. The applicant must demonstrate a credible claim and a real risk that the debtor will dissipate assets. The order takes effect immediately upon issuance. Acting within the first 48 hours of a dispute arising is the standard we recommend to all foreign clients.

Q: Is it a misconception that Swiss companies must litigate in Switzerland if the contract is silent on jurisdiction?

A: Yes. If a contract between a Swiss seller and a Polish buyer is silent on jurisdiction, Polish courts will typically assert jurisdiction over a Polish-domiciled defendant under EU and Lugano Convention rules. The Swiss company does not automatically get to litigate at home. This is one of the most common misunderstandings we encounter. Explicit jurisdiction and governing-law clauses are essential in every cross-border supply or service agreement.

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.