A German engineering firm wins a EUR 3.4 million ICC arbitration award against its Polish distributor. The tribunal has spoken. The money, however, remains unpaid. The award sits in a filing cabinet while the debtor's assets sit in Polish bank accounts. What happens next determines whether that victory translates into cash.

Enforcing an arbitral award in Poland requires a two-stage process: first, obtaining a declaration of enforceability from a Polish state court, and second, initiating enforcement through a court bailiff. For foreign awards, Polish courts apply the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958), to which Poland has been a party since 1961. Domestic awards issued by Polish arbitral tribunals follow a parallel but somewhat simpler route under the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC). The entire recognition and enforcement process typically takes between three and twelve months, depending on whether the debtor raises objections.

This guide walks through each stage of that process. It covers the court petition, the grounds for refusal, asset tracing, and the bailiff enforcement phase. Three business scenarios illustrate how the procedure plays out for a construction contractor, a software licensor, and a foreign investor. A checklist and FAQ section address the most common practical questions.

How does the Polish recognition procedure work for foreign arbitral awards?

The first stage is recognition. Before a foreign award can be enforced in Poland, a Polish court must formally declare it enforceable. This declaration – known as the exequatur – is issued by the regional court (sąd okręgowy) with jurisdiction over the debtor's place of residence or registered seat. In Warsaw, that means the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie), one of the busiest commercial courts in Poland. Filing fees are fixed at PLN 300 for a recognition petition.

The petitioner must submit the original award (or a certified copy), the original arbitration agreement (or a certified copy), and certified translations into Polish of both documents. The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) extract for the debtor is also useful to confirm the correct respondent identity. Courts generally expect apostille authentication for documents originating outside the EU, though bilateral treaties can modify this requirement.

Once the petition is filed, the court notifies the debtor and sets a deadline – usually 14 days – to file a response. If no objections are raised, the court may issue the declaration within two to four months. Contested proceedings take longer. We secured recognition of a Swiss arbitration award for a technology client in the Mazowieckie region (summer 2025), completing the court phase in under five months despite the debtor's procedural challenges.

The court does not re-examine the merits of the dispute. Its role is limited to verifying formal requirements and checking the grounds for refusal listed in the New York Convention. That limited scope is one of the key advantages of the arbitration route compared to relitigating before Polish state courts.

What are the grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement?

Polish courts may refuse recognition on grounds drawn directly from the New York Convention. These grounds are exhaustive – no court may invent additional reasons to block enforcement. Understanding them is essential, because the debtor's defence strategy will almost always target one or more of these categories.

The most frequently invoked grounds in Polish practice are the following:

  • The arbitration agreement was invalid under the law governing it.
  • The debtor was not properly notified of the proceedings or was unable to present its case.
  • The award deals with a dispute outside the scope of the submission to arbitration.
  • The composition of the tribunal or the procedure was not in accordance with the parties' agreement.
  • Recognition or enforcement would be contrary to Polish public policy (porządek publiczny).

The public policy exception is the most litigated. Polish courts have interpreted it narrowly – consistent with international standards – meaning it applies only to fundamental principles, not to mere procedural irregularities. Debtors sometimes argue that an award conflicts with mandatory Polish employment or consumer law. Those arguments rarely succeed in commercial disputes between sophisticated parties.

For domestic awards, the KPC provides an analogous but slightly shorter list of refusal grounds. One practical difference: a domestic award can be challenged through a post-award set-aside action before the same regional court, which must be filed within three months of the award being delivered. Missing that three-month window forfeits the right to challenge the award's validity entirely – a point that catches some debtors off-guard.

What is the step-by-step enforcement timeline and cost?

Once the court issues the declaration of enforceability, the award receives an enforcement clause (klauzula wykonalności). With that clause stamped on the document, the creditor can approach a court bailiff (komornik sądowy) to commence actual enforcement. This is where abstract legal victory becomes tangible asset recovery.

A realistic timeline looks like this. Filing and service of the recognition petition: weeks one to two. Court examination and debtor's response period: months one to three. Hearing (if contested): month four to six. Declaration of enforceability issued: month five to eight. Bailiff enforcement proceedings commenced: within days of receiving the enforceable title.

Bailiff fees are regulated. For monetary claims, the bailiff's fee is typically 10% of the recovered amount, subject to a statutory minimum and maximum. The creditor advances costs at the outset – usually between PLN 200 and PLN 2,000 depending on the enforcement method – and recovers them from the debtor upon successful enforcement.

Asset tracing is the practical bottleneck. Polish bailiffs have access to the Central Register of Vehicles (Centralna Ewidencja Pojazdów), the Land and Mortgage Register (Księga Wieczysta), and bank account information systems. A creditor who arrives at the bailiff's office with identified bank accounts or real property saves weeks. Our team obtained interim protective measures for a manufacturing client in Lower Silesia (winter 2025), freezing assets worth over PLN 8 million before the debtor could transfer them offshore.

Enforcement against bank accounts is the fastest method. Enforcement against real property involves a judicial sale and can take 12 to 24 additional months. Creditors with large claims should consider parallel enforcement across multiple asset classes simultaneously.

How do the three business scenarios play out in practice?

Scenario one: a construction contractor. A Polish subcontractor wins a PLN 4.5 million award at the Lewiatan Court of Arbitration (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Lewiatan) – a well-regarded domestic institution – against a general contractor registered in Warsaw. Because the award is domestic, the recognition stage is simplified. The contractor files directly for an enforcement clause at the regional court. The debtor raises a public policy objection, arguing that the award violated mandatory rules on construction contract termination. The court dismisses the objection within six weeks. Bailiff enforcement against the general contractor's bank accounts recovers PLN 3.1 million within three months of filing.

Scenario two: a software licensor. A UK-based SaaS company holds an ICC award for EUR 1.2 million against a Warsaw-based IT distributor. Post-Brexit, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements does not cover arbitral awards, but the New York Convention does – Poland's accession covers all contracting states. The recognition petition is filed at the Warsaw Regional Court. No objections are raised. The declaration is issued in four months. The bailiff traces three bank accounts and recovers the full amount, plus interest and costs, within two months of enforcement commencement.

Scenario three: a foreign investor. A German holding company holds a Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) award against its former Polish joint-venture partner. The debtor challenges the award on two grounds: improper notice and public policy. Both fail at the regional court level. The debtor appeals to the Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). The appeal is dismissed within five months. The investor then enforces against the debtor's real property in the Silesia region. The process takes 22 months in total – longer, but the award is ultimately fully satisfied. Sanctions compliance checks on the debtor's ownership structure were completed before filing, given the investor's obligations under EU sanctions law – for a detailed framework on those obligations, see our guide on sanctions screening obligations for Polish companies.

What are the most common mistakes and how can they be avoided?

Enforcement failures in Poland are rarely caused by unfavourable law. They are almost always caused by procedural missteps or delayed action. Identifying the recurring patterns helps creditors avoid them.

The first mistake is delay. Polish limitation rules apply to enforcement titles. A creditor who waits more than ten years after the award becomes final risks the debtor successfully raising a limitations defence in bailiff proceedings. Acting promptly after the award preserves the full range of enforcement options.

The second mistake is failing to secure assets before the debtor dissipates them. Polish law allows a creditor to apply for interim protective measures (zabezpieczenie) even before the recognition petition is filed, provided the creditor can demonstrate a credible claim and a risk of enforcement being frustrated. The court may grant a freezing order within 48 hours in urgent cases. Many creditors are unaware of this tool and lose valuable time.

The third mistake is incorrect document preparation. Translations must be certified by a sworn translator registered in Poland. Apostilles must be current. Missing or defective documents cause adjournments that add months to the timeline. A pre-filing checklist eliminates most of these problems.

What to prepare before filing the recognition petition:

  • Certified copy of the arbitral award with certified Polish translation.
  • Certified copy of the arbitration agreement with certified Polish translation.
  • Apostille (for non-EU documents) or equivalent authentication.
  • KRS extract or equivalent corporate registry confirmation for the debtor.
  • Evidence of the debtor's assets in Poland (bank details, property registry entries).

A fourth issue arises in cross-border employment disputes. Where the debtor is also an employer, enforcement against wages or employment-related receivables involves additional procedural steps under Polish labour law. Foreign creditors dealing with those scenarios should review our analysis of employment law compliance for companies in Poland before initiating enforcement. For creditors who have previously dealt with recognition of state-court judgments, the comparison with the arbitral route is instructive – our step-by-step breakdown of enforcing a Lithuanian judgment in Poland illustrates the key procedural differences.

The fifth mistake is underestimating the debtor's appeal options. A debtor who loses at the regional court level may appeal to the Court of Appeal, and in exceptional cases seek a cassation complaint before the Supreme Court of Poland (Sąd Najwyższy). Each level adds months. Creditors should budget for this possibility and consider whether interim measures can protect assets during the appeal period.

Specific advice for dispute lawyers instructed by foreign creditors: Polish procedural rules require a power of attorney authenticated in a form acceptable under Polish law. A notarised and apostilled power of attorney is standard. Failure to provide this delays the proceedings at the first hearing.

For creditors dealing with a KIO appeal – a challenge before the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) in public procurement contexts – note that KIO rulings are not arbitral awards in the New York Convention sense. They require a separate enforcement route through the procurement courts. This distinction matters in construction and IT procurement disputes.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does the full enforcement process take in Poland from filing to recovery?

A: For uncontested foreign awards, the recognition phase typically takes three to five months. If the debtor raises objections and appeals, the process can extend to 18 to 24 months. Enforcement through a bailiff against bank accounts can be completed within weeks of receiving the enforceable title. The total timeline from petition filing to cash recovery is commonly six to twelve months for straightforward cases. Contested cases involving real property enforcement can exceed two years.

Q: Is it true that Polish courts routinely refuse to recognise foreign arbitral awards on public policy grounds?

A: This is a common misconception. Polish courts apply the public policy exception narrowly, in line with international arbitration standards. Refusals on public policy grounds in commercial disputes between business entities are rare. The exception is reserved for awards that violate fundamental principles of the Polish legal order – not merely awards that reach a different outcome than a Polish court might have reached. Creditors should not be deterred from pursuing recognition by inflated concerns about this defence.

Q: What are the court fees and out-of-pocket costs for the recognition procedure?

A: The court filing fee for a recognition petition is PLN 300 – a fixed amount regardless of the award value. Translation costs vary by document length but typically range from PLN 500 to PLN 3,000 for standard commercial awards. Legal fees depend on the complexity of the matter and whether the debtor contests the petition. The bailiff's enforcement fee is 10% of the recovered amount (with statutory caps). In most successful enforcements, the creditor recovers all enforcement costs from the debtor.

For a tailored assessment of your enforcement strategy in Poland, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Your specific situation – the seat of arbitration, the debtor's asset profile, and whether interim measures have already been taken – determines which procedural path offers the fastest route to recovery. Delay in initiating recognition proceedings can forfeit protective options that are available only at the outset.

To discuss how the recognition and enforcement procedure applies to your award, email info@kordeckipartners.com with the arbitral institution, award value, and a brief description of the debtor's known assets in Poland.

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 commercial litigation, 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.