A Hungarian construction company had secured a final court judgment in Budapest – over EUR 180,000 in unpaid invoices against a Polish subcontractor. The judgment was enforceable in Hungary. The question was whether it could be enforced against assets in Poland, where the debtor's accounts and machinery were located.

Hungary and Poland are both European Union member states. That means a Hungarian civil judgment can be recognised and enforced in Poland under EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) without any separate recognition procedure. The creditor applies directly to a Polish enforcement court, presenting the judgment and a standard certificate issued by the Hungarian court. Enforcement typically begins within four to eight weeks of filing.

This case study walks through the background, the strategy our team deployed, the procedural steps taken in Poland, and the lessons transferable to any creditor holding a Hungarian judgment. Each stage involved decisions that either accelerated recovery or risked losing the window to act entirely.

What was the background and why did Poland matter?

The Hungarian claimant had obtained judgment in a Budapest district court after a twelve-month commercial dispute over a construction subcontract. The Polish respondent had ceased communication. Assets in Hungary were minimal – a dormant bank account and no real property. Polish assets, by contrast, included registered machinery, a company vehicle, and a receivables ledger held by the debtor's Polish operating subsidiary, registered with the National Court Register (KRS).

Our client engaged us after an initial attempt by a Hungarian law firm stalled at the translation stage. The Hungarian firm had provided a certified translation of the judgment but had not obtained the EU enforcement certificate – the zaświadczenie issued under Brussels I Recast – from the originating court in Budapest. Without that certificate, Polish enforcement courts will not process the application. That single oversight cost three months.

The debtor's financial position was deteriorating. Every week of delay risked asset dissipation. Speed was not optional – it was the defining variable in whether the client recovered anything at all.

How did the enforcement strategy account for Polish procedural rules?

Polish enforcement law channels foreign EU judgments through the district court (sąd rejonowy) at the debtor's registered address or at the location of the assets to be seized. The court does not re-examine the merits of the Hungarian judgment. Its role is limited: verify the certificate, confirm the judgment is enforceable, and issue a Polish enforcement clause (klauzula wykonalności). That clause then activates the Polish court bailiff (komornik sądowy) who carries out the actual seizure.

Our strategy had three elements. First, obtain the missing EU certificate from Budapest – a process that took eleven days through a Hungarian correspondent. Second, file simultaneously for the enforcement clause and for interim asset-freezing measures under Polish civil procedure, targeting the machinery and the receivables. Third, instruct the bailiff immediately upon receiving the clause, rather than waiting for any challenge period to expire. Interim measures protect against dissipation; speed protects against insolvency.

One practical point worth flagging: Polish bailiffs charge a percentage-based fee on recovered amounts, typically between 8% and 15% of the sum collected, depending on the enforcement method. Creditors should build that cost into their recovery model from day one.

We secured interim freezing of assets worth over EUR 200,000 for this Hungarian client in the Mazowieckie region (winter 2025). The freeze was granted within six days of filing, before the debtor's management became aware of the proceedings.

What were the critical procedural steps in Poland?

The enforcement process in Poland, once the EU certificate was in hand, moved through four distinct stages. Each had a hard deadline or a risk of lapse.

  • Filing the enforcement clause application at the competent district court, with the original judgment, certified Polish translation, and the Brussels I Recast certificate attached.
  • Receiving the enforcement clause – typically within two to four weeks for uncontested EU judgments.
  • Lodging the enforcement request with the assigned court bailiff, specifying the assets to be seized (bank accounts, machinery, receivables).
  • Monitoring the debtor's response window – the debtor has 14 days to raise a challenge to enforcement once notified, though grounds are narrow under Brussels I Recast.

The debtor did raise a challenge. The argument was that the Hungarian judgment had been issued in proceedings where the debtor claimed it had not been properly served. Under Brussels I Recast, that public policy and service argument is one of the few grounds on which a Polish court may refuse enforcement. The district court dismissed the challenge within three weeks, finding that the Budapest court's service records were complete and that the debtor had in fact participated in early-stage hearings. Enforcement resumed immediately.

For practitioners advising creditors holding foreign judgments, the service documentation from the originating court is not a formality. It is the single most important document in defeating a challenge at the enforcement stage.

What lessons apply to future cross-border enforcement?

This matter produced several transferable lessons for any creditor or dispute lawyer handling cross-border enforcement between EU member states. The Brussels I Recast framework is genuinely effective – but only when the procedural prerequisites are met without gaps.

Asset intelligence is the starting point. Before filing, identify where the debtor's attachable assets sit. Polish enforcement against bank accounts is faster and cheaper than machinery seizure. Receivables enforcement – where the bailiff notifies the debtor's own customers to pay the creditor directly – can be highly effective when the debtor has active contracts. We obtained a receivables attachment order within nine days in this matter, covering outstanding invoices the debtor held against three Polish counterparties.

Sanctions compliance deserves a brief mention here. Any creditor enforcing a judgment involving a counterparty that may be linked to sanctioned entities or jurisdictions must screen before filing. Polish courts and bailiffs are not responsible for that check. The creditor bears the risk. This is standard due diligence in any cross-border enforcement today – and connects directly to our analysis of Italian judgment enforcement in Poland, where sanctions screening featured in a parallel matter.

Finally, timing discipline is not negotiable. The combination of a deteriorating debtor and a creditor who delays – even by six weeks – is the most common reason enforcement fails. Asset dissipation, voluntary insolvency filings, and pre-insolvency restructuring all close the enforcement window permanently. Our second micro-case illustrates the point: we recovered over PLN 1.1m for a logistics client in Silesia (spring 2025) precisely because the enforcement application was filed within 48 hours of the judgment becoming final.

For creditors considering arbitration as an alternative route – particularly where the underlying contract contains an arbitration clause – the procedural framework differs but the asset-intelligence logic is identical. See our detailed guide on enforcing arbitral awards in Poland for that parallel procedure.

One procedural note on KIO appeal proceedings: if the underlying dispute arose from a Polish public procurement contract, the Public Procurement Appeals Chamber (KIO) has jurisdiction over certain preliminary disputes. That is a separate track and does not affect civil enforcement of foreign judgments – but creditors in mixed commercial and procurement contexts should be aware the tracks exist independently. For companies in Hungary navigating Polish compliance obligations, our KSeF deadline timeline for Hungarian companies covers related regulatory requirements.

To discuss how Brussels I Recast enforcement applies to your specific judgment and asset situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does a Hungarian judgment need to be formally recognised before enforcement in Poland?

A: No. Under Brussels I Recast, Hungarian civil and commercial judgments are directly enforceable in Poland without a prior recognition procedure. The creditor files for an enforcement clause directly, presenting the judgment and the EU certificate issued by the Hungarian court. There is no separate declaratory recognition stage.

Q: How long does enforcement typically take from filing to asset seizure in Poland?

A: For straightforward EU judgment enforcement, the enforcement clause issues within two to four weeks. Bailiff seizure of bank accounts can follow within days of the clause being issued. The full cycle from filing to first recovery can run four to eight weeks, though debtor challenges extend that timeline. Asset complexity and debtor cooperation are the main variables affecting cost and duration.

Q: What is the most common reason enforcement of a foreign judgment fails in Poland?

A: Missing or incomplete documentation – particularly the absence of the Brussels I Recast certificate from the originating court – is the most frequent procedural failure. A second common misconception is that the enforcement clause automatically freezes assets. It does not. A separate interim measures application is required to freeze assets before the debtor is notified and can dissipate them.

About KORDECKI & Partners

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. 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.