Enforcing a Czech Republic judgment in Poland

A Czech creditor wins a court judgment in Prague – only to discover that the debtor's assets sit entirely in Poland. The Czech ruling is binding in the Czech Republic, but collecting on it requires a separate process under Polish law. That process is less daunting than it sounds, but it demands precise sequencing and an understanding of which European instrument governs the claim.

Czech Republic judgments are enforced in Poland primarily under Rozporządzenie Bruksela I bis (Brussels Ibis Regulation, EU 1215/2012), which applies to civil and commercial matters between EU member states. Under that framework, a judgment issued in the Czech Republic is recognised in Poland automatically, without any separate declaration of enforceability, provided the judgment is enforceable in the state of origin. The creditor must then obtain an enforcement order from a Polish district court and instruct a Polish bailiff (komornik sądowy) to execute against the debtor's assets.

This guide walks through each stage: confirming the applicable instrument, filing with the National Court Register (KRS) or the competent district court, handling potential grounds for refusal, managing costs, and avoiding the mistakes that delay enforcement by months. Three business scenarios – a Czech manufacturer, an IT services provider, and a foreign investor – illustrate how the procedure plays out in practice.

Which legal framework applies to your Czech judgment?

The first decision shapes every subsequent step. Brussels Ibis Regulation governs civil and commercial judgments issued after 10 January 2015 in EU member states. For a Czech judgment falling within that scope, no exequatur – the old declaration of enforceability – is required. The creditor files directly for enforcement in Poland using a standard certificate issued by the Czech court under the Regulation.

Several instruments sit alongside Brussels Ibis. The Rozporządzenie o Europejskim Nakazie Zapłaty (European Order for Payment Regulation, EU 1896/2006) covers uncontested monetary claims and allows enforcement across the EU with a single certificate. The Rozporządzenie o Europejskim Tytule Egzekucyjnym (European Enforcement Title Regulation, EU 805/2004) similarly applies to uncontested claims. Where the Czech judgment predates 10 January 2015, the older Brussels I Regulation (EU 44/2001) applies, and that regime does require a formal enforceability declaration from a Polish court – adding roughly four to eight weeks to the timeline.

Matters outside Brussels Ibis – family law, insolvency, arbitration – follow different tracks. Arbitration awards from Czech arbitral institutions are enforced under the Konwencja Nowojorska (New York Convention, 1958), recognised by both countries. If the underlying dispute involved a KIO appeal or public procurement element, separate administrative channels may apply before civil enforcement begins. Confirming the correct instrument at the outset saves significant time and court fees.

Brussels Ibis (EU 1215/2012) – civil and commercial judgments, post-January 2015
European Order for Payment – uncontested monetary claims only
European Enforcement Title – uncontested claims with specific procedural safeguards
New York Convention – arbitration awards from Czech tribunals
Brussels I (EU 44/2001) – judgments issued before 10 January 2015

One practical check: confirm that the Czech court has issued the Brussels Ibis certificate (Form I or Form II) before filing in Poland. Without it, the Polish court will return the application. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) is not involved in enforcement proceedings, but if the debtor is a regulated financial entity, the creditor should verify whether KNF has imposed any asset restrictions that could affect the bailiff's reach.

How do you file for enforcement at a Polish court?

Filing is made to the district court (sąd rejonowy) at the debtor's place of residence or registered seat. Where the debtor is a company, the National Court Register (KRS) entry confirms the registered address and identifies the current management board – both relevant if the creditor later needs to pursue board-level liability. The application must be filed in Polish or accompanied by a certified Polish translation of the Czech judgment and its Brussels Ibis certificate.

The court fee for filing an enforcement application under Brussels Ibis is PLN 300 – a fixed amount regardless of claim size. That fee is non-refundable even if the application is rejected on procedural grounds. The court then has 30 days to issue an enforcement order, though in practice Warsaw district courts often act within 10 to 15 business days when the application is formally complete. Once issued, the enforcement order is served on the debtor, who has 30 days to raise grounds for refusal.

We secured enforcement of a Czech commercial judgment exceeding PLN 1.8m for a manufacturing client based in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The application was complete on filing day; the enforcement order arrived in 12 business days. The debtor raised no refusal grounds, and the bailiff levied the debtor's bank accounts within a further two weeks.

Documents required at filing:

Certified copy of the Czech judgment (with apostille if issued before EU accession, not required post-accession)
Brussels Ibis certificate (Form I) issued by the Czech court
Certified Polish translation of both documents
Power of attorney for Polish counsel (notarised if signed abroad)
Proof of payment of the PLN 300 court fee

One structural point: the enforcement order is granted ex parte – the debtor is not heard before it issues. This is intentional. The Regulation prioritises speed for the creditor. The debtor's right to challenge is preserved but exercised after the order, not before. That asymmetry is a significant procedural advantage for creditors acting quickly.

For a tailored strategy on cross-border enforcement, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.

What grounds can a Polish court use to refuse recognition?

Brussels Ibis narrows the grounds for refusal significantly compared to older frameworks. A Polish court may refuse recognition only on the grounds listed in the Regulation: manifest incompatibility with Polish public policy (porządek publiczny), irreconcilable conflict with a prior Polish judgment, service defects that prevented the debtor from defending, or conflict with an earlier judgment from a third state meeting certain conditions. These grounds are interpreted strictly and rarely succeed.

The public policy ground is the most frequently invoked but the hardest to establish. Polish courts have consistently held that procedural differences between Czech and Polish civil procedure do not themselves constitute a public policy violation. A debtor arguing that Czech proceedings were unfair must demonstrate a fundamental breach – not merely a different procedural rule. In practice, fewer than 15% of refusal applications in Polish courts succeed on public policy grounds alone.

Service defects present a more viable challenge. If the Czech court served proceedings on a Polish-resident debtor by methods not compliant with Rozporządzenie o doręczeniach (EU Service Regulation, EU 1784/2020), the debtor may argue it had no real opportunity to defend. Courts examine the actual circumstances of service, not just formal compliance. A creditor can neutralise this risk by verifying, before filing in the Czech Republic, that service methods comply with the EU Service Regulation.

For disputes involving sanctions compliance issues – for instance, where the debtor or its assets are subject to EU restrictive measures – enforcement may be stayed or subject to additional conditions. The creditor's counsel should check the EU sanctions register before instructing the bailiff. Enforcing against frozen assets without the relevant licence is a criminal offence in Poland.

How does the bailiff execute the judgment in Poland?

Once the enforcement order is final (or provisionally enforceable pending a refusal challenge), the creditor instructs a Polish bailiff (komornik sądowy). The creditor selects the bailiff, subject to territorial rules: the bailiff must be assigned to the district where the enforcement is to take place. For bank account levies, the creditor may instruct any bailiff in Poland regardless of territorial limits – a useful flexibility where the debtor's bank is known but the debtor's address is uncertain.

The bailiff's fee structure is set by statute. For monetary enforcement, the bailiff charges 10% of the amount actually recovered, subject to a minimum of PLN 150 and a maximum of PLN 50,000 per execution. That fee is recoverable from the debtor if enforcement succeeds. The bailiff also charges advance costs – typically PLN 300 to PLN 600 – for correspondence, searches, and asset inquiries. These advances are paid by the creditor upfront and reimbursed from recovered funds.

Our team obtained interim asset protection measures for a Czech IT services provider's Polish subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), preserving receivables worth over EUR 800,000 pending the completion of enforcement proceedings. The interim order was granted within 48 hours of application.

Asset types subject to enforcement in Poland include bank accounts, receivables owed to the debtor, real property (via mortgage enforcement), movable assets, and shares in Polish companies registered with the KRS. The bailiff conducts a search of the Central Register of Debtors (Centralna Ewidencja i Informacja o Działalności Gospodarczej, CEIDG) and the KRS to identify assets. Bank account searches via the Central Register of Bank Accounts (Centralny Rejestr Rachunków Bankowych, CRRB) are available to bailiffs and typically return results within 48 hours.

What are the most common mistakes that delay Czech judgment enforcement?

The single most frequent error is filing without the Brussels Ibis certificate. Czech courts do not issue the certificate automatically – the creditor must apply for it separately, typically within two to four weeks of the judgment becoming enforceable. Without the certificate, the Polish court cannot process the application, and the creditor loses weeks waiting for a return and resubmission. Apply for the certificate immediately after the Czech judgment is issued.

Translation errors cause the second largest category of delays. Polish courts require certified translations by a sworn translator (tłumacz przysięgły) registered in Poland. A translation certified by a Czech translator – even a court-certified Czech translator – is not accepted. Creditors working without Polish counsel routinely submit non-compliant translations, triggering a formal deficiency notice and a 7-day cure period. Missing that cure deadline results in the application being returned.

A third common mistake involves timing. Brussels Ibis does not impose a limitation period for enforcement applications, but Polish procedural law does: the underlying claim must not be time-barred under the law applicable to the merits. Where the Czech judgment reflects a commercial contract claim, the Polish court applies the limitation period of the governing law – typically three years for commercial claims under Czech law. A creditor who waits two years after the Czech judgment without filing risks a limitation defence at the enforcement stage.

What to prepare before filing:

Brussels Ibis certificate (Form I) – apply to Czech court immediately after judgment
Certified Polish translation by a sworn translator registered in Poland
Verification of debtor's current KRS or CEIDG address
Sanctions register check for debtor and its assets
Confirmation that the underlying claim is not time-barred

A fourth error – less common but more damaging – is failing to apply for interim measures before the debtor dissipates assets. Polish law allows a creditor holding a foreign enforceable judgment to apply for zabezpieczenie roszczenia (interim relief) before or alongside the enforcement application. That application can freeze bank accounts within 24 to 48 hours. Skipping this step when the debtor is actively moving assets is an irreversible mistake. Once assets leave Poland, recovery requires separate cross-border proceedings.

For guidance on how the enforcement procedure applies to your specific claim, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does enforcement of a Czech judgment in Poland typically take from start to finish?

A: Where the application is formally complete and the debtor raises no refusal grounds, the enforcement order issues within 10 to 30 days. The bailiff's execution phase then depends on asset type: bank account levies typically complete within four to six weeks; real property enforcement can take six to eighteen months. The full timeline from filing to recovery is most commonly two to four months for monetary claims against solvent debtors with accessible bank accounts.

Q: Is a Czech arbitration award enforced the same way as a Czech court judgment?

A: No. A Czech arbitration award is not covered by Brussels Ibis. It is enforced under the New York Convention, which requires a separate recognition application to a Polish court. That application involves a different set of refusal grounds – most importantly, whether the arbitration agreement was valid and whether the award was properly notified to the losing party. For more detail on how arbitration clauses affect enforceability, see our guide on arbitration clauses drafting for Polish contracts. The New York Convention process typically adds four to ten weeks compared to Brussels Ibis enforcement.

Q: What happens if the debtor has no assets in Poland but has a Polish subsidiary?

A: A subsidiary is a separate legal entity. The Czech judgment against the parent does not automatically reach the subsidiary's assets. The creditor must either obtain a judgment against the subsidiary directly, or – in exceptional circumstances – pursue a piercing-of-the-corporate-veil claim under Polish corporate law. That is a separate, more complex litigation track. If the subsidiary has its own contractual obligations to the debtor-parent, those intercompany receivables may be levied by the bailiff as assets of the parent. The structure of intercompany relationships matters significantly here; see also our article on compliance programme design for Czech Republic subsidiaries in Poland.

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 cross-border enforcement, commercial litigation, and dispute resolution. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. For those managing related cross-border exposure, our guide on enforcing a UAE judgment in Poland covers the non-EU enforcement track in comparable detail. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Weronika Kasprzak specialises in commercial litigation, arbitration, and sanctions.