A Mazowieckie-based technology company discovers that its former business partner is rapidly transferring assets to a newly created entity. The main claim – worth over PLN 8 million – is undisputed on the merits, but a full trial may take two years. Without immediate court intervention, there may be nothing left to enforce by the time judgment is handed down.

Polish civil procedure provides a dedicated mechanism for exactly this scenario: interim measures, known as zabezpieczenie roszczenia (securing a claim). A court may grant an interim measure before, during, or after proceedings, provided the applicant demonstrates a credible claim and a legal interest in protection. The measure can freeze bank accounts, prohibit asset disposals, or appoint a court administrator – often within 24 to 48 hours of filing. Failure to act quickly can permanently foreclose recovery.

This analysis covers the doctrinal framework, the procedural mechanics of obtaining interim relief in Poland, cross-border dimensions for foreign investors, and the strategic choices that determine whether a measure succeeds or fails. It is structured for counsel and business owners who need to move fast and move correctly.

What is the legal framework for interim measures in Poland?

Polish interim measure law sits within the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC). It establishes two cumulative conditions: a credible claim (uprawdopodobnienie roszczenia) and a legal interest in securing it (interes prawny w udzieleniu zabezpieczenia). Both must be satisfied. Neither alone is sufficient. Courts at the district (sąd rejonowy) and regional (sąd okręgowy) level have jurisdiction, depending on the value of the underlying claim.

The legal interest condition is met when enforcement of a future judgment would otherwise be impossible or seriously hindered. This is not a high bar in asset-dissipation cases. Where a debtor is moving property out of reach, a single transfer – documented by a company register extract from the National Court Register (KRS) – can satisfy the threshold. The National Court Register (KRS) is publicly searchable, making evidence-gathering straightforward for any competent counsel.

Polish civil procedure distinguishes between zabezpieczenie before proceedings are initiated (przed wszczęciem postępowania) and during active litigation. Pre-litigation measures are granted for a maximum of two weeks unless the applicant files a statement of claim within that window. Missing the two-week deadline causes the measure to lapse automatically – an irreversible consequence that no subsequent application can undo.

  • Credible claim: documentary evidence, contracts, invoices, correspondence
  • Legal interest: evidence of risk – asset transfers, insolvency signs, capital flight
  • Proportionality: the measure must not exceed what is necessary to secure the claim
  • Jurisdiction: district court for claims up to PLN 75,000; regional court above
  • Timeline: courts typically rule within 24–48 hours on urgent applications

One institutional actor worth noting is the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF), which operates its own parallel freezing powers in regulated sectors. Where a dispute involves a licensed financial institution, the KNF's administrative route may run concurrently with civil zabezpieczenie proceedings. Coordinating both tracks is advisable from day one.

How does a court assess the credibility of the claim?

Credibility (uprawdopodobnienie) is a lower standard than full proof. The applicant need not establish the claim beyond doubt – only that it is plausible on the available evidence. This distinction is fundamental. Courts assess the documentary record at the filing stage, without a hearing in most urgent cases. A well-assembled application can secure relief within one business day.

What does "plausible" mean in practice? The court looks for a coherent narrative supported by primary documents. A signed contract showing the debt, an unpaid invoice, and a written demand letter typically suffice for a monetary claim. For claims in tort or unjust enrichment, the evidentiary package is heavier – internal emails, audit trails, or expert opinions may be required. The Polish Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) has consistently held that conclusory assertions without documentary backing will not satisfy the threshold.

We secured interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 5 million for a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2025). The application succeeded within 36 hours because the evidentiary bundle included a notarised assignment agreement, bank transfer records, and a KRS extract showing the respondent had reduced its share capital by 90% in the preceding month. Preparation was the deciding factor.

One common misconception is that a strong merits case automatically produces a strong zabezpieczenie application. It does not. Courts evaluate the two conditions independently. An applicant with an airtight contract claim can still fail on legal interest if the respondent's financial position appears stable. Conversely, a weaker claim on the merits may succeed if the risk of asset dissipation is acute and well-documented. Counsel must address both prongs with equal rigour.

Where the claim involves an arbitration clause, the civil court retains jurisdiction to grant interim measures in support of arbitration Poland proceedings. The existence of an arbitration agreement does not strip the court of this power. This is a frequently misunderstood point – and missing it forfeits a valuable protective tool.

What types of interim measures are available, and which is right for your situation?

Polish civil procedure offers a menu of interim measures. The applicant proposes the form; the court decides. Matching the measure to the risk profile of the case is one of the most important strategic decisions in dispute management. An ill-chosen measure – too broad or too narrow – can either be rejected as disproportionate or fail to protect the asset actually at risk.

For monetary claims, the most common tools are: a bank account freeze (zajęcie rachunku bankowego), a prohibition on disposing of specified movable or immovable property, and a mortgage entry on real estate. The bank account freeze is the fastest and most effective tool where the debtor holds liquid assets. Courts can order it without notice to the respondent, making it difficult to pre-empt. A freeze of up to 150% of the claimed amount is standard.

  • Bank account freeze: fastest execution, effective against liquid assets
  • Real estate mortgage entry: appropriate for high-value fixed assets
  • Prohibition on asset disposal: broad but harder to monitor
  • Court administrator appointment: used where a business must continue operating

For non-monetary claims – injunctions to perform or refrain from an act – the court may issue a temporary injunction (zakaz zbywania or nakaz zaprzestania). These are common in intellectual property disputes and commercial lease conflicts. Where a tenant has unlawfully locked out a landlord, an interim measure ordering restoration of access can be executed within days. Readers advising on commercial lease disputes under Polish law will find these tools directly applicable. (See our analysis of commercial lease key terms under Polish law for the underlying contractual framework.)

One structural point: if the applicant requests a measure that is more burdensome than necessary, the court will reduce it – but will not substitute a different, more appropriate measure on its own initiative. The burden of proposing the right instrument lies entirely with the applicant. Guessing wrong wastes time and signals inexperience to the court.

What are the cross-border dimensions for foreign investors?

Foreign investors operating in Poland frequently face the question of whether a Polish court will enforce an interim measure granted abroad – or conversely, whether a Polish interim measure will have effect outside the country. The answer depends on the source of the foreign measure and the procedural route taken. Getting this wrong can mean an asset disappears across a border before enforcement catches up.

Within the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) allows a court in one member state to grant provisional measures even if the courts of another member state have jurisdiction on the merits. This means a Warsaw court can freeze assets located in Poland in support of litigation Warsaw proceedings or in support of main proceedings pending in Germany or France. The practical consequence: a creditor with a claim before a French court can apply to a Polish court for a freeze of the debtor's Polish bank accounts. Our analysis of enforcing a France judgment in Poland step by step sets out the recognition framework that follows once a final judgment is obtained.

For investors from non-EU jurisdictions, bilateral treaties govern recognition. Where no treaty applies, a Polish court will assess enforceability on a case-by-case basis under domestic private international law. Investors from countries subject to sanctions compliance obligations face an additional layer: any asset freeze must be checked against applicable EU and US sanctions lists to ensure the measure does not inadvertently conflict with a pre-existing freeze order from a sanctions authority. This is not a theoretical concern – it has arisen in practice for CIS-desk clients since 2022.

We obtained a cross-border asset freeze for a Silesian manufacturing client whose counterparty was attempting to shift receivables to a Slovak subsidiary (autumn 2024). Coordinating the Polish zabezpieczenie with enforcement proceedings in Slovakia required precise timing. Readers involved in similar cross-border enforcement chains should review our guide on enforcing a Slovakia judgment in Poland step by step for the procedural sequence that follows interim relief.

One cross-border scenario that arises specifically in public procurement is the KIO appeal (odwołanie do KIO – appeal to the National Appeals Chamber). The National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) has its own suspension mechanism that operates parallel to civil zabezpieczenie. Where a contracting authority is about to sign a contract following a disputed tender, a KIO suspension can halt the process. This is a specialist route distinct from general civil interim measures, and mixing up the two procedural tracks is a common and costly error.

What procedural steps and timelines should applicants expect?

Speed is the defining feature of interim measure procedure. Polish civil procedure allows a court to rule without hearing the other side – ex parte – where delay would defeat the purpose of the measure. In practice, urgent applications filed before noon are frequently decided the same day. The trade-off is that the respondent may challenge the measure immediately after it is served, triggering a contested hearing within days.

The procedural sequence runs as follows. First, the application is filed with the competent court, along with the filing fee – typically one-quarter of the standard court fee for the underlying claim, capped at PLN 10,000 for monetary claims. Second, the court reviews the application and issues a decision, usually within 24–72 hours. Third, the decision is served on the respondent. Fourth, the respondent may file a complaint (zażalenie) within one week. Fifth, the court of second instance rules on the complaint, typically within four to six weeks.

Timing discipline is non-negotiable. A pre-litigation measure lapses if the underlying claim is not filed within two weeks. If the case is resolved or the claim is dismissed, the measure is lifted and the applicant faces liability for damages caused by the wrongful freeze. Polish civil procedure provides an explicit damages claim for the respondent in such cases – personal liability of the applicant for losses flowing from an unjustified measure is real and quantifiable.

For a dispute lawyer advising a client on the morning assets are discovered to be moving, the practical checklist is short but critical:

  • Identify the asset at risk and locate it within the Polish jurisdiction
  • Assemble documentary evidence of the claim and the risk of dissipation
  • Determine the correct court and calculate the filing fee
  • File the application with a precise proposed measure before the asset moves
  • File the statement of claim within two weeks to preserve the measure

One practical consideration that is frequently overlooked: the court's decision granting the measure is immediately enforceable. There is no automatic stay pending the respondent's complaint. This means the bailiff (komornik sądowy) can execute the freeze before the respondent even receives the decision. Moving quickly from court decision to bailiff instruction – ideally within hours – closes the window for evasion.

How should applicants manage risk and strategic exposure?

Interim measures are powerful. They are also double-edged. An applicant who obtains a freeze on a false or exaggerated basis, or who fails to prosecute the underlying claim diligently, faces reversal of the measure and a damages claim that can equal or exceed the original dispute. Strategic use of zabezpieczenie requires calibrating both the upside and the downside.

The proportionality rule is the most important constraint. A freeze of PLN 20 million on a PLN 5 million claim is disproportionate and will be reduced or dismissed. Courts are alert to applicants who use interim measures as a commercial pressure tool rather than a genuine protective mechanism. Where the court detects tactical abuse – for instance, freezing the respondent's operating accounts to force a settlement – it may dismiss the application and award costs against the applicant. This outcome is irreversible at the interim stage.

One structural protection available to applicants is the security deposit (kaucja). In some cases, the court conditions the grant of an interim measure on the applicant depositing a sum with the court as security for the respondent's potential damages. This is more common where the claim is on the weaker end of credibility. Anticipating this requirement and having funds available prevents an otherwise sound application from stalling at the last step.

From a sanctions compliance perspective, applicants operating in regulated sectors should verify that the proposed freeze does not interact with pre-existing EU sanctions measures. Freezing assets that are already frozen under a sanctions regime requires coordination with the relevant competent authority – in Poland, this is the Ministry of Finance. Acting without that coordination can expose the applicant to regulatory liability independent of the civil dispute.

Finally, interim measures interact with insolvency proceedings. If the respondent files for insolvency after a freeze is granted, the freeze may be lifted under insolvency law provisions that protect the estate for all creditors equally. Acting before insolvency is filed – and filing for zabezpieczenie the moment the risk materialises – is the only reliable way to preserve priority. Delay of even 48 hours can forfeit the advantage entirely.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How quickly can a Polish court grant an interim measure in a commercial dispute?

A: In urgent cases filed before noon, Polish courts regularly issue decisions the same day or within 24 hours. The court rules without hearing the respondent where delay would defeat the purpose of the measure. Once the decision is issued, the court bailiff can execute a bank account freeze the same day the decision is served. The two-week deadline to file the underlying claim begins from the date the measure is granted, not from the date of service.

Q: Is it true that having an arbitration clause prevents a Polish court from granting interim measures?

A: This is a common misconception. Polish civil courts retain full jurisdiction to grant interim measures in support of arbitration Poland proceedings, even where the parties have agreed to submit their dispute to an arbitral tribunal. The existence of an arbitration agreement does not affect the court's power to freeze assets or issue injunctions. The applicant should notify the arbitral tribunal of the measure promptly after it is granted.

Q: What does an interim measure application typically cost, and who bears the cost if the measure is later overturned?

A: The filing fee for an interim measure application is one-quarter of the standard court fee for the underlying claim, subject to a cap of PLN 10,000 for monetary claims. If the measure is later lifted because the underlying claim is dismissed or withdrawn, the respondent has a direct claim against the applicant for damages caused by the wrongful freeze. Those damages are assessed by the court in separate proceedings and can be substantial. Applicants should treat the risk of a damages claim as a real cost of the strategy, not a theoretical one.

To discuss how interim measures apply to your specific situation, email info@kordeckipartners.com.

Your company's specific circumstances determine whether a zabezpieczenie application will succeed or expose you to counterclaims. Acting without a precise assessment of both conditions – credibility and legal interest – forfeits the protective effect and may permanently damage your litigation position.

If your company is facing asset dissipation, a cross-border enforcement challenge, or a KIO appeal deadline, we will assess your application, identify the correct measure, and file within your operational window: 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 commercial litigation, interim measures, 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.