A London-based private equity fund files for arbitration under an ICC clause. Days later, the Polish counterparty opens parallel proceedings before a Warsaw district court, seeking an injunction to block the arbitration entirely. The fund's counsel faces an immediate question: can a court or tribunal issue an order restraining those Polish proceedings – and if so, where and how?
Anti-suit injunctions are court or tribunal orders that restrain a party from commencing or continuing proceedings in another forum. In the Polish context, such orders arise in two directions: a foreign court or arbitral tribunal may seek to restrain Polish proceedings, or a Polish court may restrain foreign litigation. Polish courts do not routinely issue anti-suit injunctions in the common-law sense, yet interim protection mechanisms under Polish civil procedure – combined with EU Brussels I Recast rules and the New York Convention – create a framework that practitioners must understand before any cross-border dispute escalates.
This page explains how anti-suit mechanisms interact with Polish proceedings, what instruments are available to protect arbitration agreements and jurisdiction clauses, where the procedural traps lie, and what a cross-border party should prepare before filing. The analysis covers both offensive strategies (restraining Polish litigation) and defensive ones (protecting Polish proceedings from foreign injunctions).
What are anti-suit injunctions and how do they interact with Polish proceedings?
An anti-suit injunction is an in personam order directed at a party, not at a foreign court. It commands that party to refrain from pursuing – or to withdraw – proceedings in a specified forum. The distinction matters enormously in the Polish context. Polish courts, as EU member-state courts, cannot issue anti-suit injunctions that restrain litigation in another EU member state. The Court of Justice of the EU confirmed this principle in its Turner and West Tankers rulings, and the position has not changed under Brussels I Recast (Regulation 1215/2012). Restraining proceedings in Germany, France, or any EU jurisdiction through a Polish injunction is therefore foreclosed as a matter of EU law.
The position differs for non-EU proceedings and for arbitration. A Polish court may, in principle, issue interim measures protecting a contractual forum-selection clause where the competing proceedings are in a third country – Ukraine, the United States, or the United Kingdom post-Brexit. The Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC) authorises the National Court Register (KRS)-registered courts to grant security measures (zabezpieczenie) aimed at protecting a party's legal interest pending resolution of the main dispute. Securing a jurisdiction agreement qualifies as a protectable legal interest under Polish case law.
Arbitration adds a distinct layer. Where parties have agreed to arbitration – whether before the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy KIG) or an international institution – Polish courts have a duty under the New York Convention and the KPC to refer disputing parties to arbitration when validly seized. A party that ignores the arbitration clause and files in a Polish court can face a jurisdictional objection raised within the first procedural step, leading to dismissal. That objection, properly timed, functions as a defensive anti-suit tool within the Polish system itself.
When can a foreign court or tribunal restrain Polish proceedings?
A foreign arbitral tribunal seated outside Poland can issue interim measures – including anti-suit orders – against a party subject to its jurisdiction. The critical question is whether that order will have any practical effect on Polish-seated litigation. Enforcement of foreign interim measures in Poland is governed by the KPC and, for EU judgments, by Brussels I Recast. Interim orders are generally not directly enforceable as final judgments, but they carry significant indirect weight: a party that defies a tribunal's anti-suit order risks adverse cost orders, adverse inferences, and – in common-law seats – contempt sanctions.
For a German investor's subsidiary operating in Lower Silesia (spring 2025), our team obtained interim measures from a Swiss-seated arbitral tribunal that effectively suspended parallel Polish court proceedings. The Polish counterparty, faced with the tribunal's order and the risk of cost sanctions exceeding EUR 3m, withdrew the Warsaw application within six weeks. The result was achieved without seeking Polish court enforcement of the Swiss order – leverage alone sufficed.
Where the foreign order is a court order rather than a tribunal award, Brussels I Recast governs enforceability within the EU. Interim measures granted by an EU court are enforceable in Poland without a separate exequatur, provided they were issued with the defendant having been heard (or in urgent ex parte circumstances with subsequent notification). A party defending Polish proceedings against a French or Italian injunction should therefore move quickly: the step-by-step guide to enforcing a French judgment in Poland sets out the procedural sequence that applies equally to interim enforcement applications.
What procedural instruments protect arbitration agreements in Polish courts?
Polish procedural law offers three practical instruments for a party seeking to protect a valid arbitration agreement against parallel court proceedings. First, a jurisdictional objection (zarzut zapisu na sąd polubowny) must be raised in the first pleading filed before the Polish court – failure to do so constitutes waiver, and the court proceeds on the merits. The deadline is absolute: one missed filing closes the arbitration route permanently. Second, a stay application under the KPC allows the court to suspend proceedings while the arbitration agreement's validity is determined. Third, a security measure can freeze assets or restrain conduct pending the arbitral determination.
Consider the following instruments and their typical timelines:
- Jurisdictional objection – filed in first pleading, decided within 30 to 90 days by the district court
- Stay of proceedings – granted pending arbitration, typically 60 to 120 days to first hearing
- Asset freeze (zabezpieczenie majątkowe) – ex parte application, decision within 7 days under urgent procedure
- Anti-enforcement injunction – available post-award to block premature execution
- Arbitration clause validity challenge – heard by the court of appeals, adding 6 to 18 months if contested
Timing the jurisdictional objection correctly is the single most consequential step. We have seen clients in Mazowieckie (autumn 2024) lose their arbitration rights entirely because local counsel filed a substantive defence before raising the jurisdictional point – a procedural error that cost the client its contractual forum and forced a Warsaw district-court trial it had contractually excluded. The irreversible nature of that waiver cannot be overstated.
For a party on the receiving end of a KIO appeal (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza – National Appeals Chamber) in public procurement disputes, the analysis differs. KIO proceedings are administrative in character and cannot be displaced by arbitration clauses. A dispute lawyer advising a procurement client must treat KIO and civil arbitration as parallel tracks, not alternatives.
What are the cross-border pitfalls specific to Polish proceedings?
Cross-border disputes involving Polish proceedings carry several recurring pitfalls that are distinct from purely domestic litigation. Understanding them early – before proceedings are filed anywhere – determines whether the arbitration or jurisdiction agreement survives.
First, service of process. Polish courts apply the EU Service Regulation (Regulation 1393/2004, recast in 2022) for service within the EU and the Hague Service Convention for third countries. A foreign party that does not designate a Polish address for service risks proceedings advancing without its knowledge. Default judgments issued after defective service are technically challengeable, but the challenge process before the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF)-regulated financial entities and before ordinary courts can take 12 to 24 months – during which enforcement may already have commenced.
Second, lis pendens. Brussels I Recast requires an EU court seized second to stay its proceedings if the same cause of action is pending before another EU court seized first. A party that files in Poland first – even tactically – may gain a lis pendens advantage that forces a preferred foreign forum to stay its own case for months or years. This tactic is used aggressively in commercial disputes and is a core reason why anti-suit injunctions from non-EU tribunals have limited direct effect inside the EU.
Third, sanctions compliance. Where a party to Polish proceedings is subject to EU, US, or UK sanctions, the dispute lawyer must assess whether making payments under a settlement or judgment constitutes a prohibited transaction. The Polish General Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Finance both have oversight roles. Engaging in litigation without a sanctions clearance analysis can expose counsel and client to regulatory penalties independent of the dispute outcome. Our internal investigations methodology for Polish companies addresses how to structure that pre-litigation compliance review.
Fourth, enforcement asymmetry. Winning an anti-suit order from a foreign tribunal does not automatically stop Polish proceedings. A party must either convince the Polish court to stay voluntarily – through the jurisdictional objection mechanism – or rely on the indirect pressure of sanctions from the foreign forum. Direct enforcement of a foreign anti-suit order against a Polish court is not possible: Polish courts are sovereign and will not be commanded by a foreign tribunal to suspend their own docket.
To receive an expert assessment of your cross-border dispute exposure, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
How should foreign investors structure their dispute strategy for Poland?
A foreign investor entering Poland – whether through an acquisition, a joint venture, or a long-term supply contract – should treat dispute-forum architecture as a day-one priority, not an afterthought. The choice of seat, governing law, and jurisdiction clause determines which anti-suit tools will be available if the relationship breaks down.
Three business scenarios illustrate the strategic options:
Manufacturing investor (EU origin): A German manufacturer acquiring a Polish production facility should include an ICC arbitration clause with a Vienna or Paris seat. EU-seated arbitration benefits from the full support of Brussels I Recast for interim measures and from Polish courts' established practice of referring parties to arbitration. A jurisdiction clause pointing to a German court, by contrast, triggers EU lis pendens rules that can be exploited by either party.
IT services provider (UK origin): A British SaaS company contracting with Polish public-sector clients should note that many public contracts are governed by Polish public procurement law, which limits arbitration in certain categories. For the commercial elements of the relationship, a London-seated LCIA clause remains enforceable in Poland under the New York Convention. Post-Brexit, UK court judgments require a separate recognition process – see the step-by-step guide to enforcing an Italian judgment in Poland for the analogous EU recognition framework that now applies to UK decisions by analogy in Polish practice.
CIS investor (Ukrainian or Belarusian origin): Investors from CIS jurisdictions face additional scrutiny under Polish foreign investment screening rules and, where applicable, EU sanctions regimes. Arbitration clauses pointing to Stockholm (SCC) or Vienna (VIAC) are the most defensible choice. Litigation Warsaw-style – before Polish civil courts – remains available but exposes the CIS party to potential asset-freezing applications from Polish counterparties acting under sanctions-related grounds.
The decision matrix, simplified: EU-origin investor with EU counterparty → ICC or VIAC arbitration, Paris or Vienna seat, KPC interim measures available. Non-EU investor with Polish counterparty → New York Convention arbitration, non-EU seat, enforce interim measures through indirect pressure. Mixed public-private contract → separate arbitration clause for commercial elements, KIO track for procurement disputes.
What should parties prepare before anti-suit proceedings in or against Poland?
Preparation determines outcome. A party that waits until proceedings are filed – whether in Warsaw or abroad – has already lost the initiative. The following checklist covers the minimum preparatory steps for any cross-border dispute involving Polish proceedings.
- Audit all jurisdiction and arbitration clauses in the relevant contracts – identify conflicts, gaps, and waiver risks before the first letter before action is sent
- Verify service-of-process addresses and appoint a Polish representative if the party has no registered presence in Poland
- Conduct a sanctions compliance screen covering EU, US, and UK designations for all counterparties and their beneficial owners
- Assess lis pendens risk – determine which forum can be seized first and whether a tactical filing would benefit or harm your position
- Identify assets in Poland subject to potential freezing and consider pre-emptive restructuring of asset holdings where legally permissible
For a manufacturing client in Silesia (winter 2024), we structured a pre-dispute asset review that identified PLN 18m of exposed receivables. By restructuring the receivables assignment before the counterparty filed, the client neutralised the freezing-order risk entirely. Acting six weeks earlier than the counterparty expected made the difference between an orderly dispute and an emergency application.
Parties should also consider whether the dispute involves any element of arbitration Poland practitioners classify as "arbitrability-sensitive" – employment claims, consumer contracts, and certain IP rights fall outside the scope of valid arbitration agreements under Polish law. Misclassifying an arbitrable claim can invalidate the entire clause, leaving the party exposed to Polish court jurisdiction it sought to exclude.
A specific concern for litigation Warsaw practitioners: Polish courts apply a strict 14-day window for challenging a security measure granted ex parte. Missing that window forfeits the right to contest the freeze. Personal liability of directors for assets dissipated after a freezing order is issued is a distinct risk that corporate officers should be briefed on before any cross-border dispute commences.
For a tailored strategy on anti-suit proceedings involving Polish courts or tribunals, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Can a Polish court issue an anti-suit injunction against proceedings in another EU member state?
A: No. EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, prohibits courts of EU member states from issuing orders that restrain proceedings in other member-state courts. This prohibition applies regardless of whether a valid arbitration agreement or jurisdiction clause exists. The correct remedy within the EU is a jurisdictional objection or a stay application before the court that is seized – not an injunction directed at the foreign forum.
Q: How long does it take a Polish court to decide a jurisdictional objection based on an arbitration clause?
A: A district court typically decides a jurisdictional objection within 30 to 90 days of it being raised. If the objection is rejected and appealed, the appellate process before the regional court of appeals adds a further 6 to 18 months. During that period, the Polish court may stay substantive proceedings or continue them – the decision is discretionary. Early engagement with experienced dispute counsel is essential because the objection must be filed in the very first pleading; no extension is available.
Q: Is it true that foreign arbitral awards are automatically enforced in Poland without separate proceedings?
A: This is a common misconception. Foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in Poland under the New York Convention, but enforcement requires a separate recognition and enforcement application before the Polish court of appeals. The court reviews the award for compliance with Polish public policy and basic procedural fairness – it does not re-examine the merits. The process typically takes 6 to 12 months. An award creditor should file promptly: Polish limitation rules apply to enforcement applications, and delay can extinguish the right to proceed.
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 dispute resolution, anti-suit proceedings, and arbitration strategy. 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.