A German investor files an arbitration claim in London under an ICC clause. Days later, the Polish counterparty files a parallel action before a Warsaw district court, seeking a declaration that no valid arbitration agreement exists. The London tribunal issues an anti-suit injunction. The question is whether that order carries any weight in Poland – and what happens when the positions are reversed.

Anti-suit injunctions are court or tribunal orders that prohibit a party from commencing or continuing proceedings in another forum. Polish courts do not issue anti-suit injunctions in the traditional common-law sense, but they interact with such orders through the Brussels Ibis Regulation, the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and domestic interim-relief provisions under the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC). A party facing parallel proceedings involving Poland must act within days, not weeks, to preserve its forum choice and avoid an irreversible loss of procedural advantage.

This page sets out the legal framework, the practical instruments available in Polish proceedings, the most common pitfalls, cross-border considerations, and a self-assessment checklist. It covers four core situations: a foreign anti-suit injunction directed at Polish proceedings; a Polish party seeking protection against foreign proceedings; enforcement of foreign injunctions; and the interaction with arbitration seated in Poland under supervision of the Sąd Polubowny przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej (Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce, SA KIG).

What is the legal basis for anti-suit injunctions involving Polish proceedings?

Polish procedural law does not contain a provision labelled "anti-suit injunction." That does not mean Polish courts are powerless. Under the KPC, a court may grant interim relief prohibiting a party from taking specified actions – including commencing or continuing foreign proceedings – provided the applicant demonstrates a credible claim and a risk that enforcement of any final judgment would be impossible or seriously impaired without interim protection. The threshold is high but not insurmountable. Courts in Warsaw and Kraków have granted such orders in commercial disputes where parallel proceedings posed a real risk of irreconcilable judgments.

The Brussels Ibis Regulation (Regulation EU No 1215/2012) complicates the picture for intra-EU disputes. The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that anti-suit injunctions issued by courts of EU member states to restrain proceedings in other member states are incompatible with the mutual trust principle. This means a Polish court will not issue an order prohibiting litigation in, say, Germany or France. Equally, a French or German court order telling a party to stop its Warsaw litigation will not be enforced by Polish courts under the Regulation. The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) is the reference point for establishing a Polish entity's registered seat, which determines which EU jurisdictional rules apply.

Arbitration is treated differently. The New York Convention, ratified by Poland, requires Polish courts to refer parties to arbitration when a valid arbitration agreement exists. A Polish court may stay domestic proceedings and, in appropriate cases, grant interim measures supporting arbitration. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) has no direct role in commercial arbitration, but regulated entities must factor in supervisory proceedings when assessing forum strategy. The key statutory deadline for challenging jurisdiction in Polish court proceedings is the first procedural act – miss it and the objection is waived, with consequences that cannot be undone.

For disputes outside the EU framework – involving parties from the United States, the United Kingdom post-Brexit, or jurisdictions in the CIS region – Polish courts retain broader discretion. A common-law anti-suit injunction from a London court will not be automatically recognised in Poland, but it creates contractual and reputational pressure that experienced counsel can use in negotiations and in parallel Polish proceedings.

When does parallel litigation in Poland create irreversible risk?

Parallel proceedings are not merely inconvenient. They can extinguish rights entirely. If a Polish court issues a judgment before a foreign tribunal or arbitral panel reaches a final award, the Polish judgment may block recognition of the foreign decision under res judicata principles – foreclosing the winning party's ability to enforce abroad. The window to prevent this is narrow: typically 14 days from the moment a party learns of the parallel filing, which is the standard deadline for an urgent interim-relief application in Polish commercial courts.

Three scenarios generate the highest risk. First, a Polish subsidiary files a declaratory action in Warsaw to obtain a finding that a cross-border contract is void, while the parent company pursues arbitration in London or Stockholm. Second, a creditor commences insolvency proceedings before the Sąd Rejonowy (District Court) while the debtor contests the underlying debt in foreign arbitration. Third, a party in a public procurement dispute files a KIO appeal – an appeal to the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) – while simultaneously seeking relief in a civil court of general jurisdiction. Each scenario requires a different response, and the wrong choice forfeits the procedural position permanently.

We secured a stay of Warsaw civil proceedings for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), preventing a Polish declaratory judgment that would have pre-empted an ICC arbitration award worth over EUR 8m. The application was filed within 10 days of the parallel action being served.

The irreversibility point is not theoretical. Once a Polish court delivers a final judgment on the merits, that judgment becomes res judicata under Polish civil procedure. No subsequent foreign award or judgment on the same subject matter between the same parties will be recognised by Polish courts. The lost opportunity to act early cannot be recovered by any later procedural step.

  • Declaratory actions in Polish courts can neutralise foreign arbitration clauses if unopposed.
  • Insolvency filings in Poland trigger an automatic stay of most civil proceedings.
  • KIO appeals have a 10-day filing deadline from the contested procurement decision.
  • Failure to raise a jurisdiction objection at the first hearing waives it permanently.
  • A Polish interim order blocking asset transfers can outlast the underlying dispute if not challenged promptly.

For a tailored strategy on parallel proceedings involving Poland, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.

Every day of delay narrows the options. A party that identifies the parallel-proceedings risk early retains full strategic flexibility. One that waits for the first substantive hearing may find that the most effective remedies are already closed. To discuss how interim relief instruments apply to your specific situation, email info@kordeckipartners.com.

How do Polish courts handle foreign anti-suit injunctions?

A foreign anti-suit injunction – whether from an English High Court, a US federal court, or a Singapore court – does not automatically bind Polish courts or Polish parties. Recognition depends on the applicable bilateral or multilateral treaty, the nature of the proceedings, and whether the order qualifies as a judgment for recognition purposes. English anti-suit injunctions issued after Brexit are no longer governed by the Brussels Ibis Regulation. They must be recognised under Polish domestic rules, which require a formal recognition procedure before the competent Polish court of appeal.

The practical effect of a foreign anti-suit injunction is therefore indirect but real. A Polish party that ignores an English anti-suit injunction risks contempt proceedings in England, asset freezing in jurisdictions where it holds property, and reputational damage with international counterparties. Polish counsel advising on sanctions compliance must map the party's global asset footprint before recommending whether to comply, challenge, or seek a carve-out. Sanctions compliance considerations arise particularly where the enjoined party is subject to EU restrictive measures, which may themselves restrict access to certain forums.

We obtained interim asset protection measures for a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), coordinating parallel applications in Warsaw and Frankfurt to ensure that a foreign anti-suit injunction did not create a procedural vacuum in either jurisdiction. The assets protected exceeded EUR 12m.

Polish courts will not treat a foreign anti-suit injunction as a reason to stay or dismiss domestic proceedings unless the order has been formally recognised or the parties agree to its effect by contract. The correct approach is to apply for a parallel Polish interim measure – either a stay of proceedings or an order preserving assets – while simultaneously managing the foreign injunction through local counsel in the issuing jurisdiction. Coordination between Warsaw and the foreign forum is essential and must happen within days of the injunction being served.

What instruments are available to protect forum choice in Polish litigation?

Polish procedural law offers several instruments that function as functional equivalents of anti-suit protection, even though they do not carry that label. The primary tool is an application for interim relief under the KPC, which can include an order prohibiting a party from taking specified actions – including filing new proceedings in a designated forum – for the duration of the main proceedings. The court must rule on an urgent application within 7 days. If the application is filed without notifying the other party (ex parte), the order takes effect immediately and the opposing party has 14 days to challenge it.

A second instrument is the jurisdiction objection, which must be raised at the very first procedural step in Polish court proceedings. For arbitration-seated disputes, this means presenting the arbitration agreement to the court and requesting referral. The arbitration Poland framework under the KPC requires the court to refer parties to arbitration unless the agreement is null, inoperative, or incapable of performance. Courts in Warsaw – the primary centre for litigation Warsaw – have generally applied this obligation strictly in recent years, particularly in disputes with an international element.

A third option is an application to the arbitral tribunal itself for interim measures. Under the KPC provisions governing arbitration, a Polish-seated tribunal may grant interim relief that is then enforced by the competent district court. This is particularly relevant where the dispute involves a dispute lawyer representing a party in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, and where the arbitral tribunal has broader powers than the state court to tailor the relief to the specific forum risk.

The decision matrix is straightforward. If the seat of arbitration is in Poland – consider a tribunal interim order, supported by a parallel court application. If the seat is abroad and Polish court proceedings are the threat – apply immediately for a stay and raise the arbitration agreement. If both parties are EU-based and the dispute is contractual – assess whether the Brussels Ibis lis pendens rules provide sufficient protection before seeking interim relief. Each path has a different cost and timeline: a court interim order costs approximately PLN 1,000 in court fees; an arbitral interim application depends on the tribunal's fee schedule but is typically resolved within 30 days.

For an expert assessment of your forum-protection strategy, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Choosing the wrong instrument wastes time and signals weakness to the opposing party. A party that files in the wrong forum first – even with good intentions – may inadvertently submit to jurisdiction it intended to avoid. Specific advice from a dispute lawyer with experience in both Polish civil procedure and international arbitration is essential before taking any step. To receive an expert assessment of your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

What are the cross-border pitfalls for foreign investors in Polish proceedings?

For a foreign investor entering a Polish dispute, the procedural environment has several features that differ sharply from common-law or German-law expectations. Polish civil procedure is formalistic: deadlines are statutory and courts rarely grant extensions. An investor relying on foreign counsel unfamiliar with Polish practice may miss a 14-day response deadline, a 7-day objection window, or the requirement to file translations of all foreign-language documents certified by a sworn translator. Each of these failures can close a procedural door permanently.

The enforcing a UAE judgment in Poland context illustrates the point well. A UAE creditor holding a judgment against a Polish company must commence a separate recognition procedure in Poland, which takes 3 to 6 months on average. During that period, the debtor may dissipate assets unless the creditor simultaneously applies for interim asset-freezing measures. The same logic applies to enforcing a UAE judgment in Poland step by step and to any foreign judgment from outside the EU framework. Missing the asset-freezing window while waiting for recognition is a common and costly mistake.

A related risk arises for corporate directors. Polish corporate law imposes personal liability on board members who allow a company to continue trading while insolvent. A director facing parallel proceedings – a foreign arbitration and a Polish insolvency application – must understand that the insolvency filing triggers a 30-day statutory deadline for the board to act. Failure to file within that window exposes directors to personal liability for the company's unsatisfied debts. The insurance coverage that Polish directors need addresses this exposure, but insurance does not substitute for timely procedural action.

Luxembourg-based holding structures face a specific challenge when their Polish subsidiaries are drawn into litigation. Enforcement of a Luxembourg judgment in Poland requires a recognition procedure under the Brussels Ibis Regulation, which is generally straightforward for EU judgments – but only if the judgment is final and the Polish party was properly served. Gaps in service documentation are a frequent reason for delay. See our detailed guide on enforcing a Luxembourg judgment in Poland step by step for the procedural sequence.

What should your team prepare before engaging Polish proceedings?

Preparation is the single most effective way to preserve optionality in cross-border disputes involving Poland. A party that arrives at the first hearing with a complete file, certified translations, and a clear jurisdictional strategy retains every available remedy. One that arrives unprepared forfeits the most effective tools at the earliest and most critical stage.

The checklist below reflects the minimum preparation standard for any cross-border matter involving Polish proceedings, whether as claimant, respondent, or third party.

  • Obtain certified Polish translations of all key contracts, arbitration clauses, and foreign court orders before the first filing deadline.
  • Map the Polish entity's assets – real property, bank accounts, receivables – to support an interim asset-freezing application if needed.
  • Identify whether any existing foreign anti-suit injunction has been served on the Polish party and assess its enforceability in Poland within 48 hours of receipt.
  • Confirm the seat of any arbitration and whether the KPC interim-relief provisions or the tribunal's own rules provide the faster route to protection.
  • Verify the registered seat of all Polish entities in the National Court Register (KRS) to confirm jurisdictional competence of the target court.

Three business scenarios illustrate how preparation translates into outcomes. A manufacturing company with a Polish supplier facing a declaratory action in Warsaw should file a jurisdiction objection and an interim stay application on the same day – delay of even one week can result in the court scheduling a merits hearing before the objection is resolved. An IT company with a Polish development partner that commences parallel proceedings in a foreign arbitration and a Warsaw court should immediately identify which forum has priority under the applicable rules and concentrate resources there. A foreign investor with a Luxembourg holding structure should ensure that all group-level judgments are formally recognised in Poland before any enforcement action is taken, to avoid the asset-dissipation window that opens during the recognition period.

To discuss how these instruments apply to your case, email info@kordeckipartners.com.

The cost of preparation is modest relative to the cost of a forfeited procedural position. Court fees for interim applications in Poland range from PLN 1,000 to PLN 5,000. The cost of a missed 14-day deadline can be the entire dispute. Engaging a dispute lawyer with Polish procedural expertise at the earliest sign of parallel proceedings is the most cost-effective investment available in any cross-border matter touching Poland.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a Polish court issue an anti-suit injunction to stop foreign litigation?

A: Polish courts can grant interim orders prohibiting a party from specified procedural actions, including commencing foreign proceedings, under the KPC interim-relief framework. However, within the EU, such orders conflict with the mutual trust principle under the Brussels Ibis Regulation and will not be issued to restrain litigation in other EU member states. For non-EU forums – including post-Brexit England, the United States, and CIS jurisdictions – Polish courts retain broader discretion. The application must demonstrate a credible claim and an imminent risk of irreconcilable judgments; the court must rule within 7 days on an urgent application.

Q: How long does it take to enforce a foreign anti-suit injunction in Poland, and what does it cost?

A: There is no dedicated fast-track procedure for recognising foreign anti-suit injunctions in Poland. Recognition follows the standard foreign judgment recognition procedure, which takes 3 to 6 months before the competent court of appeal. Court fees for recognition applications are fixed by statute and are typically below PLN 5,000 for commercial matters. Because the recognition timeline is long, practitioners generally advise pursuing parallel Polish interim measures rather than relying solely on a foreign injunction to protect the forum position.

Q: Is it a misconception that an arbitration clause automatically stops Polish court proceedings?

A: Yes – this is one of the most common misconceptions. An arbitration clause does not automatically stay Polish court proceedings. The party relying on the clause must raise a formal jurisdiction objection at the very first procedural step in the Polish litigation. If that step is missed, the court acquires jurisdiction by submission and the arbitration clause becomes unenforceable in that dispute. The objection must be accompanied by the arbitration agreement itself; courts will not investigate the existence of an agreement on their own initiative. Acting at the very first hearing – not the second – is essential.

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 injunction strategy, and enforcement of foreign judgments 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.