A Romanian construction company wins a court judgment against its Polish subcontractor for unpaid invoices totalling EUR 180,000. The Romanian creditor now holds a valid, enforceable title – but the debtor's assets are in Poland. The question is not whether the judgment can be enforced there. The question is how quickly, and at what cost.
Romania and Poland are both European Union member states. Romanian court judgments therefore benefit from automatic mutual recognition under EU Regulation 1215/2012 (the Brussels I Recast Regulation). No separate declaration of enforceability is required. The creditor files directly with a Polish bailiff (komornik), attaching the judgment and a standard certificate issued by the Romanian court. Enforcement can begin within weeks of filing.
This guide walks through every procedural step – from obtaining the Romanian certificate to completing enforcement in Poland. It covers timelines, court fees, three business scenarios, the most common mistakes, and a checklist of documents. Each section addresses a specific stage so you can assess where your case currently stands.
Why does Brussels I Recast matter for Romanian creditors?
The Brussels I Recast Regulation abolished the exequatur procedure for judgments issued within the EU after 10 January 2015. Before that date, a creditor had to apply to a Polish court for a declaration of enforceability – a process that could take six to twelve months. Today, that stage no longer exists for judgments falling within the Regulation's scope. This single change dramatically shortened the enforcement timeline for Romanian creditors.
The Regulation covers civil and commercial matters. It does not apply to revenue, customs, or administrative law. Family law, insolvency, and arbitration awards sit outside its scope as well. A Romanian commercial court judgment for unpaid goods or services will typically fall squarely within the Regulation. A Romanian arbitration award, by contrast, requires a separate recognition procedure under the New York Convention – a distinction that catches many creditors off guard.
The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) in Poland is the starting point for locating the debtor's registered seat and identifying assets held through Polish entities. The District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) at the debtor's place of residence or registered seat holds jurisdiction for any challenges raised during enforcement. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) is relevant only where the debtor operates in a regulated sector.
One practical nuance: the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to judgments given in proceedings commenced after 10 January 2015. Older judgments may still fall under the prior Brussels I Regulation (EC 44/2001), which does require a declaration of enforceability. Checking the date of proceedings – not just the date of the judgment – is therefore the first task for any Romanian creditor.
What documents does the creditor need to enforce in Poland?
Document preparation is where most enforcement attempts stall. The Brussels I Recast Regulation specifies exactly what the creditor must present to the Polish bailiff. Missing even one element delays the process by weeks. The core set is compact, but each item carries formal requirements that must be met precisely.
The required documents are:
- The Romanian court judgment – certified copy, bearing the court's seal
- The Article 53 certificate issued by the Romanian court on a standard EU form (Form I)
- A sworn Polish translation of the judgment (if the judgment is not already in Polish)
- A sworn Polish translation of the certificate (Form I)
- Power of attorney for the Polish enforcement counsel, apostilled or legalised if issued abroad
The sworn translation requirement is non-negotiable. Polish bailiffs will reject filings that include only the original Romanian text. A certified translation by a Polish sworn translator (tłumacz przysięgły) costs between PLN 50 and PLN 120 per page. A 20-page judgment therefore adds roughly PLN 1,000 to PLN 2,400 to the upfront costs. Budgeting for this early avoids delays later.
We secured enforcement of a Romanian commercial judgment exceeding PLN 850,000 for a logistics client based in Pomerania (autumn 2025). The single factor that accelerated the process was having a complete, correctly translated document set ready before approaching the bailiff. Incomplete filings had caused a two-month delay in an earlier attempt by the creditor's previous counsel.
For context on related cross-border labour disputes involving Romanian nationals working in Poland, see our guide on posted workers from Romania to Poland and A1 certificates.
How does the enforcement procedure work step by step?
Once documents are in order, the procedural path is linear. Each step has a defined actor and a rough timeline. Understanding the sequence prevents creditors from applying pressure at the wrong stage – for example, chasing the court when the bottleneck is actually the bailiff's workload.
The steps run as follows. First, the creditor's Polish counsel selects a competent bailiff. Under Polish enforcement law, the creditor may choose any bailiff operating within the district court circuit covering the debtor's assets – not just the bailiff assigned to the debtor's registered address. This freedom of choice is significant. Bailiffs in Warsaw's commercial districts typically handle cross-border matters faster than those in smaller circuits.
Second, counsel files the enforcement application (wniosek egzekucyjny) with the chosen bailiff. The application identifies the claim amount, interest, and costs, and attaches all translated documents. The bailiff issues a formal notice to the debtor within approximately seven to fourteen days. The debtor then has thirty days to raise a challenge before the District Court.
Third, if no challenge is raised – or once a challenge is dismissed – the bailiff proceeds with enforcement measures. These include bank account seizure, salary garnishment, seizure of movable assets, and – for larger claims – a charge over real property registered with the Land and Mortgage Register (Księga Wieczysta). Bank account seizure is typically the fastest measure, producing results within two to four weeks of the bailiff's order.
The bailiff's fee is set by statute. For claims above PLN 10,000, the fee is 10% of the recovered amount, capped at PLN 50,000. The creditor advances a nominal filing fee of PLN 50. The bulk of the bailiff's costs are recovered from the debtor upon successful enforcement.
What are the most common mistakes – and how do you avoid them?
Three recurring errors account for the majority of failed or delayed enforcement attempts by Romanian creditors in Poland. Each is avoidable with proper preparation. Failing to address any one of them risks losing months – and, in insolvency scenarios, forfeiting the claim entirely.
The first mistake is misidentifying the judgment's scope. Not every Romanian court decision qualifies as a "judgment" under the Brussels I Recast Regulation. Provisional measures issued ex parte without prior notice to the defendant require a separate procedure under the Regulation's protective measures provisions. Treating them as standard judgments leads to rejection at the bailiff's office.
The second mistake is ignoring the debtor's insolvency risk. Polish insolvency law provides a mechanism – the bankruptcy estate (masa upadłościowa) – that freezes individual enforcement once insolvency proceedings are opened. A creditor who delays enforcement by even thirty days may find that the debtor has filed for bankruptcy, converting an individual enforcement action into a collective insolvency procedure. The creditor then joins a queue of creditors, with no guarantee of full recovery. Speed is not merely convenient – it is often the difference between full recovery and partial loss.
The third mistake is underestimating translation costs and lead times. Sworn translators for Romanian-Polish pairs are less numerous than for German-Polish or English-Polish. In Warsaw, lead times for a sworn Romanian-Polish translation range from five to ten business days. Planning for this gap at the outset prevents a last-minute scramble.
Our team obtained enforcement measures protecting assets worth over EUR 3m for a Romanian investor's subsidiary in Mazowieckie (spring 2026). The key intervention was filing an application to secure assets before the debtor's financial position deteriorated further – a step that precludes the debtor from dissipating assets during the enforcement period.
Three business scenarios: manufacturing, IT, and foreign investor
The enforcement procedure is the same across sectors, but the practical emphasis differs. Identifying the right enforcement measure depends on the debtor's asset profile. The three scenarios below illustrate how the same legal framework applies differently in practice.
Manufacturing creditor. A Romanian steel supplier holds a judgment against a Polish manufacturing company for EUR 220,000. The debtor owns industrial machinery and holds accounts at two Polish banks. The optimal sequence is simultaneous bank account seizure and a charge over the machinery. Bank seizure produces cash quickly; the machinery charge secures residual value if accounts are insufficient. The bailiff can execute both measures concurrently.
IT services creditor. A Romanian software house holds a judgment against a Polish IT company for PLN 400,000 in unpaid licence fees. The debtor's primary assets are receivables from its own clients. Polish enforcement law allows the bailiff to seize third-party receivables owed to the debtor. The bailiff notifies the debtor's clients directly, redirecting payments to the enforcement account. This measure is effective for asset-light businesses where bank balances are deliberately kept low.
Foreign investor scenario. A Romanian parent company holds a judgment against its former Polish joint venture partner. The dispute arose from a shareholder agreement. The debtor holds shares in a Polish limited liability company (spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością, sp. z o.o.). Shares in a sp. z o.o. are subject to enforcement under Polish civil procedure. The bailiff notifies the KRS and restricts the debtor's ability to transfer the shares. For guidance on broader dispute strategy in Poland, see our disputes practice overview.
Comparing enforcement approaches across different debtor profiles is itself a form of pre-enforcement due diligence. Creditors who skip this step often pursue the wrong asset first, giving the debtor time to restructure holdings. For those with experience enforcing Ukrainian judgments in Poland, the procedural logic is analogous – see our guide to enforcing a Ukraine judgment in Poland for a comparative perspective.
A specific note on sanctions compliance: Romanian creditors should verify whether any sanctions regime – EU, US, or UK – applies to the Polish debtor or its beneficial owners before initiating enforcement. Enforcing a judgment in favour of a sanctioned entity, or against an entity whose assets are frozen, creates personal liability for counsel and the creditor alike. This check takes one business day and should be standard practice.
To receive an expert assessment of your enforcement strategy in Poland, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
What to prepare: enforcement checklist
Before instructing a Polish bailiff, assemble the following. Gaps in this list are the single most predictable source of delay. Review it against your file before the first contact with Polish counsel.
- Certified copy of the Romanian judgment (court-sealed, dated)
- Form I certificate issued by the Romanian court under the Brussels I Recast Regulation
- Sworn Polish translations of both documents, prepared by a Polish tłumacz przysięgły
- Current KRS extract for the Polish debtor (obtainable online within minutes)
- Power of attorney for Polish enforcement counsel, apostilled if executed outside Poland
Timeline estimate: from document assembly to first enforcement measure, expect four to eight weeks for an uncontested matter. Contested cases – where the debtor challenges the enforcement before the District Court – add two to four months. Interest continues to accrue during any challenge period, so delay is not cost-free for the debtor either.
Cost estimate: sworn translation (PLN 1,000–2,500), bailiff filing fee (PLN 50), counsel fees (variable, typically a fixed fee for the enforcement application plus a success component), and the statutory bailiff's fee of 10% of recovered sums (paid by the debtor). The creditor's net recovery cost is therefore modest relative to the claim value for amounts above EUR 30,000.
If the judgment predates 10 January 2015, add a recognition application to the District Court to the timeline. That procedure takes an additional three to six months and involves a court fee calculated as a percentage of the claim value – typically 5% of the amount sought, subject to a statutory cap.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Does a Romanian arbitration award benefit from the same automatic recognition as a court judgment?
A: No. Arbitration awards sit outside the Brussels I Recast Regulation. A Romanian arbitration award must be recognised in Poland under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). The creditor applies to the competent District Court in Poland. The court examines whether the award meets the Convention's requirements – a process that typically takes three to nine months. Polish courts have a strong track record of recognising awards from Convention member states, but the procedure is materially longer than enforcement of a court judgment. Budget accordingly when pursuing arbitration in Romania against a Polish counterparty.
Q: What happens if the Polish debtor files for bankruptcy after enforcement has started?
A: Once insolvency proceedings are opened by a Polish court, individual enforcement actions are suspended by operation of law. Claims already partially satisfied before the insolvency filing are not reversed, but any funds not yet transferred to the creditor are absorbed into the bankruptcy estate. This is the core reason to move quickly. A creditor who has already secured a bank account seizure and received payment before the insolvency filing retains that payment. A creditor who waited loses priority. Polish insolvency law provides a thirty-day window from the moment insolvency conditions are met for the debtor to file – monitoring the debtor's financial health is therefore part of enforcement risk management.
Q: Can a KIO appeal (public procurement appeal) affect enforcement of a Romanian judgment against a Polish contractor?
A: A KIO appeal (appeal to the National Appeals Chamber – Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) is a public procurement remedy unrelated to civil enforcement. It does not suspend or affect enforcement proceedings under the Brussels I Recast Regulation. However, if the debtor's primary income stream derives from a public contract that is itself under challenge, the practical recoverability of the claim may be affected. In those cases, a receivables seizure targeting the contract payment stream should be filed immediately, before the KIO ruling resolves the procurement dispute. Dispute lawyers advising on enforcement should check the debtor's public contract portfolio as part of pre-enforcement due diligence.
Enforcing a foreign judgment in Poland requires coordinated legal action across two jurisdictions. Specific circumstances – the debtor's asset profile, the judgment date, the presence of any sanctions exposure – will determine which enforcement measures to prioritise and in what sequence. For a tailored strategy on enforcing your Romanian judgment in Poland, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.
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 arbitration in Poland. 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.