Interim measures (zabezpieczenie) – securing

A Warsaw-based technology company discovers that its counterparty – a distributor holding EUR 800,000 in unpaid invoices – has begun transferring assets to a related entity. The main proceedings will take two years. Without an interim measure, the judgment may be unenforceable by the time it arrives.

Polish civil procedure allows a claimant to obtain an interim measure (zabezpieczenie roszczenia) before or during litigation, freezing assets or restraining conduct while the main case proceeds. The court must act within one week of receiving the application – or within two weeks in complex cases. A correctly filed application can freeze bank accounts, encumber real property, or appoint a receiver before the defendant even knows proceedings have started.

This guide walks through the full procedure: eligibility conditions, the step-by-step application process, costs and timelines, three business scenarios, and the most common mistakes that cause applications to fail. Each section ends with a practical checkpoint so you can assess your own position before instructing counsel.

What conditions must a claimant meet to obtain interim measures in Poland?

Polish civil procedure sets two mandatory thresholds. The applicant must demonstrate a plausible claim (uprawdopodobnienie roszczenia) and a legal interest in obtaining security (interes prawny w udzieleniu zabezpieczenia). Both must be present. Failing either threshold – even with strong underlying merits – means the application is refused at the outset.

Plausibility does not require proof to the standard used at trial. The applicant shows that the claim is credible and legally arguable. Documents, contracts, correspondence, and financial records all serve this purpose. Courts registered with the National Court Register (KRS) or supervised by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) in regulated sectors apply the same standard, but regulated-sector disputes sometimes involve additional procedural layers.

Legal interest exists when the absence of security would deprive enforcement of practical effect. This is the harder threshold in practice. The applicant must point to concrete risk – asset dissipation, insolvency risk, or deliberate evasion – not merely the theoretical possibility that a judgment could go unsatisfied. Evidence of transfers to related parties, sudden changes in ownership structure, or deteriorating financial ratios all support this element.

One important boundary: the interim measure must not pre-satisfy the claim. A court in Mazowieckie (autumn 2024) refused an application that effectively transferred full possession of contested goods to the applicant before trial. The District Court of Warsaw held that the measure crossed the line from security into anticipatory enforcement. Applicants must frame relief carefully to avoid this outcome.

Prepare a written statement of facts with supporting documents before filing
Identify the specific asset or conduct to be restrained
Gather evidence of concrete risk – bank statements, corporate registry extracts, correspondence
Confirm that the measure sought does not fully satisfy the underlying claim
Check whether the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the District Court (sąd okręgowy) or Regional Court (sąd rejonowy)

How does the step-by-step application procedure work?

The application is filed with the court that has jurisdiction over the main claim. If proceedings have not yet started, the applicant has two weeks from the date security is granted to file the substantive action – failing this, the interim measure lapses automatically. This two-week deadline is one of the most frequently missed steps in practice.

The court decides without a hearing in the majority of cases. This ex parte feature is intentional: advance notice would allow the defendant to dissipate assets before the order takes effect. The one-week statutory decision period (two weeks for complex matters) runs from the date of filing. In practice, Warsaw district courts have been meeting this timetable in straightforward asset-freezing cases.

Once the order is issued, the applicant must serve it – usually through a bailiff (komornik sądowy) – to give it practical effect. A bank account freeze requires presenting the order to the relevant bank. Real property encumbrance requires an entry in the Land and Mortgage Register (Księga Wieczysta). Each enforcement step adds time: allow two to five business days per asset class.

The defendant may challenge the order through a complaint (zażalenie) filed within one week. The appellate court then has two weeks to decide. This is the window during which the interim measure is most vulnerable. A well-drafted original application – anticipating the defendant's arguments – significantly reduces the risk of reversal on appeal. We obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 5m for a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2025), and the order survived a zażalenie challenge intact.

What are the costs, timelines, and security deposits?

Filing an interim measures application costs a flat court fee of PLN 100 for applications filed before the main action is commenced. Once litigation is underway, the application is free of court fees. This low barrier to entry is one reason interim measures are used widely in Polish commercial disputes – including in arbitration Poland proceedings where courts retain jurisdiction to grant security.

The more significant financial obligation is the security deposit (kaucja). A court may require the applicant to lodge a deposit – typically between one and five percent of the secured claim value – to compensate the defendant if the measure later proves unjustified. For a claim of PLN 2m, the deposit could reach PLN 100,000. Failure to lodge the deposit within the court-set deadline causes the order to lapse.

Total elapsed time from filing to enforcement against a bank account is typically five to fifteen business days in straightforward cases. Real property encumbrance takes longer: Land and Mortgage Register entries can take four to eight weeks in busier registry divisions. Planning for these timelines matters – particularly when dealing with counterparties who may act quickly once they sense litigation is coming.

For disputes routed through the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (National Appeals Chamber, KIO) in public procurement matters, different procedural rules apply. A KIO appeal suspends the procurement procedure automatically for a defined period. Practitioners handling both commercial litigation Warsaw and procurement disputes must keep these parallel frameworks distinct.

How do three business scenarios shape the right approach?

Scenario one: a manufacturing client in Silesia discovers that its Polish sub-contractor is winding down operations and redirecting contracts to a newly incorporated entity. The claim is PLN 3.5m in unpaid works. The correct instrument is a bank account freeze combined with an encumbrance on real property owned by the sub-contractor. The applicant files before commencing the main action, lodges a PLN 70,000 deposit, and obtains the order in six days. The sub-contractor's attempt to transfer its warehouse is blocked at the Land and Mortgage Register stage.

Scenario two: an IT company in Warsaw holds a software licence agreement that the counterparty is attempting to terminate in breach of contract. The claim is not monetary but declaratory – the applicant wants continued access to a platform. Here, the interim measure takes the form of a prohibitory injunction (zakaz) restraining the counterparty from suspending access. Polish courts grant such relief where the harm is irreversible and monetary compensation would be inadequate. The applicant must demonstrate urgency with particular care.

Scenario three: a foreign investor entering Poland through a joint venture faces a dispute with its local partner over management rights. The investor seeks appointment of a supervisor (zarządca) over the Polish entity pending resolution. This is a more intrusive form of relief. Courts grant supervisory orders cautiously – the applicant must show a real risk of asset stripping or governance abuse, not merely a disagreement over strategy. Sanctions compliance considerations may also arise if the local partner has cross-border exposure. For investors also managing a Luxembourg or Ukrainian judgment, the enforcement framework is addressed in our guides on enforcing a Luxembourg judgment in Poland and enforcing a Ukrainian judgment in Poland.

What mistakes cause interim measures applications to fail?

The most common failure is vague framing of the legal interest. Applicants write that "the defendant may not pay" without producing evidence of specific risk. Courts in Warsaw and Kraków consistently reject this approach. The application must identify concrete indicators – recent asset transfers, declining liquidity ratios, restructuring proceedings, or evasive conduct – and connect them to the risk of unenforceable judgment.

A second frequent error is over-reaching on the scope of relief. Requesting a freeze on all assets of a defendant – rather than a defined pool covering the claim with a reasonable margin – signals to the court that the applicant is seeking tactical advantage rather than genuine security. Courts apply proportionality strictly. The requested measure must correspond to the value of the claim. A dispute lawyer experienced in Polish interim measures will calibrate the scope before filing.

Third: missing the two-week deadline to file the main action after a pre-litigation order is granted. This error is irreversible. The interim measure lapses by operation of law, and the applicant forfeits the secured position entirely. The defendant may also claim damages for the period during which assets were frozen without a valid underlying action. Tracking this deadline from the moment the order is issued is non-negotiable.

Fourth: failing to anticipate the zażalenie. The defendant's challenge is predictable. A well-prepared application addresses the strongest counter-arguments in advance. Where a debtor is also undergoing preventive restructuring, the interaction between the restructuring moratorium and the interim order must be addressed explicitly – see our analysis of preventive restructuring in Poland for the applicable framework. Overlooking this interaction has caused otherwise strong applications to be suspended mid-process.

What to prepare before filing an interim measures application:

Executed contracts, invoices, and correspondence evidencing the claim
Corporate registry extracts (KRS) for all relevant entities
Bank statements or financial documents showing asset movements
A precise description of the asset or conduct to be restrained
Proof of funds for the potential security deposit

Specific situations require tailored analysis. Filing an application without a clear evidence map – and without anticipating the defendant's zażalenie – precludes recovery of the secured position once assets have moved. To receive an expert assessment of your interim measures strategy, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a foreign company apply for interim measures in Poland without a local entity?

A: Yes. Foreign entities have standing to file applications before Polish civil courts without establishing a Polish subsidiary. The application must be filed in Polish, and the applicant may be required to appoint a representative for service of process in Poland. Courts assess the plausibility of the claim and legal interest on the same substantive basis regardless of the applicant's nationality. Legal representation by a Polish advocate or legal counsel is strongly advisable.

Q: How long does an interim measure remain in force, and can it be extended?

A: An interim measure granted before the main action is filed remains in force for two weeks – the period within which the applicant must commence the substantive proceedings. Once litigation is underway, the measure remains in force until the court issues a final and binding judgment, unless it is earlier lifted or modified. There is no automatic expiry during active proceedings. The defendant may apply to lift the measure if circumstances change materially – for example, if the risk of dissipation has demonstrably passed.

Q: Is there a common misconception about the cost of interim measures in Poland?

A: The most widespread misconception is that interim measures are expensive because of court fees. In reality, the PLN 100 flat fee (pre-litigation) makes the application itself low-cost. The real financial exposure is the security deposit, which scales with the claim value and can represent a meaningful cash commitment. A second misconception is that interim measures automatically attach to all assets. They do not – each asset class requires a separate enforcement step, and each step involves its own procedural timeline and cost.

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 dispute resolution. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.