Enforcing a Poland judgment in Poland – step by step

A Mazowieckie-based logistics company had secured a final court judgment against a domestic debtor – a sum exceeding PLN 800,000. The judgment was enforceable. The debtor had assets. Yet months passed without a single złoty recovered. The creditor's in-house team had filed the enforcement application themselves, made procedural errors, and watched the bailiff suspend proceedings. The case reached our disputes team in autumn 2025.

Enforcing a domestic Polish judgment requires a formal enforcement title, a bailiff appointment through the District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), and a correctly framed enforcement application. Polish enforcement law sets strict procedural rules: errors in the application or missing documents cause suspension or rejection, delaying recovery by months. The enforcement process typically runs three to twelve months, depending on asset type and debtor cooperation.

This case study walks through the background, the strategy we adopted, the procedural steps taken, and the lessons that apply to any creditor holding a Polish judgment. Each phase contains a concrete takeaway for in-house counsel and foreign investors operating in Poland.

What went wrong before we were instructed?

The creditor had obtained a final judgment from the Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) in Warsaw. The judgment bore the enforcement clause – the formal stamp issued by the court that converts a judgment into an enforceable title. That much was correct. The problem began at the next step. Under Polish civil procedure, the creditor must file an enforcement application with a bailiff (komornik sądowy) attached to a specific court district. The in-house team filed with a bailiff whose territorial jurisdiction did not cover the debtor's registered address or known assets. That single error triggered a formal suspension within six weeks.

A second error compounded the first. The application listed the debtor's bank account number incorrectly – one digit transposed. Polish enforcement law requires exact identification of the enforcement measure sought. An incorrect account number means the bailiff cannot execute a bank levy. The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) entry for the debtor had been updated three months earlier, reflecting a change of registered address. The in-house team had used the old address throughout. These are not exotic mistakes. They appear in a material share of self-filed enforcement cases we review.

When our team took over, the bailiff had formally suspended proceedings. The creditor faced a restart – but with the clock already running on the debtor's asset-dissipation risk.

How did we structure the enforcement strategy?

Our first action was to obtain a fresh KRS extract and a land register (księga wieczysta) search. Within 48 hours, we identified three enforcement targets: a bank account at a domestic commercial bank, a receivable owed to the debtor by a third party, and real property in the Mazowieckie region. Polish enforcement law allows simultaneous levies on multiple assets. We filed three parallel enforcement applications – one per asset category – with a correctly identified bailiff within the debtor's district.

We also applied for disclosure of the debtor's assets under Polish civil enforcement procedure. This mechanism compels the debtor to file a sworn declaration of all assets within a court-set deadline, typically 14 days. Failure to comply or a false declaration carries criminal exposure under Polish law. The asset disclosure application is underused by creditors but highly effective as a pressure tool – particularly where the debtor is a trading company concerned about its commercial reputation.

• Verify KRS and land register entries before filing any enforcement application.
• Identify at least two independent asset categories to file simultaneous levies.
• Use the asset disclosure mechanism early – it shifts pressure to the debtor.
• Confirm bailiff territorial jurisdiction before submission.
• Check that all account numbers and identifiers match current registry data.

We secured a partial bank levy within 11 days of re-filing. The debtor contacted us within three weeks to negotiate a settlement. That timeline – from re-instruction to first recovery – was under one month.

What does the step-by-step process look like?

For any creditor holding a Polish judgment, the procedural sequence is as follows. First, obtain the enforcement clause from the court that issued the judgment. This is a formal application; the court issues the clause within seven days in straightforward cases. Second, identify the bailiff with correct territorial jurisdiction – this depends on where the debtor resides, is registered, or holds assets. Third, file the enforcement application with the precise enforcement measure specified: bank levy, wage garnishment, real property seizure, or receivables levy.

The bailiff notifies the debtor of enforcement. From that point, the debtor has limited ability to challenge the levy without posting security equal to the full judgment amount. That threshold – full security – deters most tactical objections. The bailiff then executes: freezing accounts, notifying employers, or registering a charge on land. Proceeds are remitted to the creditor after the bailiff deducts statutory fees, which are capped under Polish law and calculated as a percentage of the amount recovered.

We obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over PLN 1.2m for a manufacturing client in Lower Silesia (winter 2025), running parallel to a main enforcement action. Interim asset freezes under Polish civil procedure can be granted within 24 hours in urgent cases – a timeline that most creditors do not realise is available. For creditors with cross-border exposure, our analysis of enforcing a Luxembourg judgment in Poland covers the additional exequatur steps that apply to foreign titles.

What are the transferable lessons for creditors?

Three patterns appear repeatedly in enforcement matters we handle. First, creditors underestimate the precision required in the enforcement application. Polish civil enforcement procedure treats the application as a formal pleading. Errors are not corrected by the bailiff – they are returned or cause suspension. Second, creditors wait too long after judgment. Every month of delay increases the risk that the debtor transfers, encumbers, or dissipates assets. Polish corporate law does not automatically prevent asset transfers post-judgment. Acting within 30 days of judgment becoming final is the practical standard.

Third, creditors treat enforcement as a single-track process. Simultaneous levies on multiple asset classes are permitted and strategically superior. A debtor facing a frozen bank account, a garnished receivable, and a land register charge simultaneously has far less room to manoeuvre. This is the approach we applied in the Mazowieckie case – and it produced a negotiated settlement in under four weeks.

Sanctions compliance also matters in enforcement contexts. Where the debtor has cross-border ownership or the creditor operates in regulated sectors, checking sanctions registers before remitting recovered funds is required. Our analysis of sanctions screening obligations for Polish companies explains the screening steps that apply. Similarly, where enforcement intersects with public procurement disputes – for example, recovering contract values after a KIO appeal – procedural discipline is equally important, as our guide on anti-corruption compliance under Polish law addresses in the procurement context.

For foreign investors and in-house teams unfamiliar with Polish enforcement mechanics, the complexity is real. But it is manageable with correct procedure from the outset. Arbitration Poland awards and foreign judgments follow a different route – but once converted to a Polish enforcement title, the bailiff process is identical.

What to prepare before instructing a bailiff:

• Current KRS extract (not older than 30 days) for the debtor entity.
• Land register number if real property enforcement is planned.
• Correct bank account number verified against recent invoices or contracts.
• The original enforcement clause issued by the court.

Specific enforcement situations carry irreversible consequences if mishandled. Asset dissipation, missed levy windows, and procedural rejections can forfeit recovery entirely – particularly where the debtor is approaching insolvency.

To discuss how enforcement procedure applies to your judgment, email info@kordeckipartners.com. Our disputes team will assess the debtor's asset position, identify the correct enforcement route, and file within the shortest available timeline.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does it take to enforce a domestic Polish judgment?

A: Timeline depends on asset type. Bank levies typically execute within two to four weeks of a correctly filed application. Real property enforcement takes longer – commonly six to eighteen months – because it involves a court-supervised auction process. Wage garnishment falls between these extremes. Filing errors reset the clock entirely, which is why application accuracy is the single most important variable a creditor controls.

Q: Can the debtor challenge enforcement after the bailiff has been instructed?

A: The debtor may file a complaint against specific bailiff actions, but suspension of enforcement requires posting security equal to the full judgment amount. This is a common misconception – many debtors and their advisers believe that filing an objection automatically halts the process. It does not. The creditor's levy remains in place while any challenge is resolved, unless a court expressly orders otherwise on application by the debtor.

Q: What costs does the creditor bear in enforcement proceedings?

A: The creditor pays an advance fee to the bailiff at the time of filing – typically a flat amount set by statute, currently PLN 200 for most enforcement applications. The bailiff's success fee is then deducted from recovered proceeds and is borne by the debtor under Polish law. Legal costs of instructing a dispute lawyer are recoverable from the debtor up to the statutory tariff, though complex matters often exceed that tariff in practice.

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 litigation, enforcement proceedings, and arbitration. 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.