A German logistics company wins a multi-year contract dispute before a Warsaw district court. The judgment is clear. Yet when the client asks how much of its legal costs it can recover from the losing counterparty, the answer is far more complicated than the victory itself. Polish cost recovery rules operate on a tariff system that often bears little resemblance to the fees actually paid to counsel – and the gap can run into hundreds of thousands of zloty.

Polish civil procedure allocates litigation costs between parties according to the outcome of the case, applying fixed statutory tariffs to attorney fees rather than actual invoiced amounts. The general rule is that the losing party bears all costs, but courts may divide costs proportionally when a claimant succeeds only in part. Fee tariffs are set by regulation and depend on the value of the claim, capping recoverable attorney fees at amounts that frequently fall well below market rates.

This page explains how cost recovery works at each stage of Polish civil proceedings, identifies the most common pitfalls, and sets out what foreign investors and domestic businesses should consider before committing to litigation in Poland. The sections below move from the foundational rules through procedural instruments, cross-border issues, and a practical self-assessment checklist.

How does the Polish cost recovery framework operate?

Polish civil procedure is governed by the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC). Under the KPC, every court judgment must resolve the question of costs. The default principle is simple: the loser pays. In practice, however, the amount the winner actually recovers depends on a parallel regulatory framework that sets maximum recoverable attorney fees independently of what counsel charges.

The Sąd Rejonowy (District Court) and Sąd Okręgowy (Regional Court) apply tariff rates established by regulation of the Minister of Justice. These tariffs are tiered by claim value. For a PLN 100,000 claim, the recoverable attorney fee is fixed at PLN 3,600. For a PLN 1,000,000 claim, it rises to PLN 10,800. In complex commercial disputes where actual counsel fees may reach PLN 100,000 or more, the gap is significant.

Courts retain discretion to award up to six times the base tariff rate in cases of exceptional complexity. This multiplier is rarely applied automatically. A party seeking enhanced recovery must expressly request it and justify the complexity of the matter. The Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court of Poland) has confirmed that standard tariff rates apply unless a specific justification is placed on the record.

Court fees – as distinct from attorney fees – are set separately. Filing a claim requires payment of a court fee calculated as a percentage of the claim value, subject to a maximum of PLN 200,000. These fees are fully recoverable if the claimant wins. Partial success triggers proportional allocation: if a party wins 60 percent of its claim, it recovers 60 percent of costs.

What procedural instruments affect cost recovery?

Several procedural tools shape how costs accumulate and are ultimately allocated. Understanding them early – ideally before the first filing – can materially affect the net economic outcome of litigation. Three instruments are particularly important: the settlement offer mechanism, interim measures, and the appeal cost regime.

Polish civil procedure includes a formal settlement offer mechanism. If a defendant makes a written settlement proposal that the claimant refuses, and the court later awards the claimant no more than the offered amount, the court may shift post-offer costs to the claimant. This mirrors the logic of the English Part 36 offer. The deadline for the court to consider this shift is the date of the judgment. A claimant who ignores a reasonable offer faces real cost exposure – even in a case it technically wins.

We secured a reversal of a cost allocation decision exceeding PLN 180,000 for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The lower court had failed to account for a settlement offer made by our client six months into proceedings. On appeal, the Regional Court corrected the allocation in full.

Interim measures (zabezpieczenie roszczenia) generate their own cost consequences. If a claimant obtains interim relief but ultimately loses the case, the defendant is entitled to compensation for losses caused by the measures. That compensation claim is processed separately, but the underlying cost exposure can exceed the original claim value. The 14-day window for the defendant to file such a claim runs from the date the interim order lapses or is set aside.

On appeal, costs are assessed separately for each instance. A party that loses at first instance and also loses on appeal bears the costs of both levels. Appellate attorney fee tariffs are set at 50 percent of the first-instance rate for the same claim value. This means that a full appellate defeat on a PLN 500,000 claim results in a recoverable cost award of approximately PLN 10,800 across both instances – still a fraction of actual fees.

For a tailored strategy on cost management in Polish litigation, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.

What are the common pitfalls in recovering litigation costs?

Cost recovery failures in Polish proceedings rarely stem from ignorance of the tariff rules. They arise from procedural missteps that are entirely avoidable. Three patterns recur with particular frequency in our practice.

First: failing to itemise costs in the closing submissions. Polish courts do not automatically calculate the winning party's costs. The winning party must submit a cost specification (spis kosztów) at or before the hearing at which judgment is delivered. A party that omits this document loses the right to have its costs assessed by the court. The court will then apply the minimum tariff rate without regard to actual expenditure. This is an irreversible consequence – the cost order becomes final once the judgment is served.

Second: misunderstanding the scope of recoverable costs. Travel expenses, translation fees, and expert witness costs are recoverable in principle, but each item must be supported by documentary evidence submitted to the court file. Invoices submitted after the cost specification deadline are routinely rejected. The practical rule is to gather and file all supporting documents before the final hearing, not after.

Third: overlooking the interaction between cost recovery and enforcement. Even a favourable cost order is only as valuable as the debtor's ability to pay. If the losing party is insolvent or has transferred assets, the cost award becomes a theoretical entitlement. This connects directly to the decision of whether to pursue enforcement through the National Court Register (KRS) records before initiating proceedings. Checking a counterparty's financial standing at the outset can save the cost of a pyrrhic victory.

For businesses involved in public procurement disputes, the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (National Appeals Chamber, KIO) operates its own cost regime. KIO appeal fees are fixed at PLN 15,000 for supply and service contracts above EU thresholds. Recovery follows the outcome, but the KIO has discretion to reduce awards where a party's conduct prolonged the proceedings unnecessarily.

How do cross-border disputes affect cost recovery in Poland?

Foreign parties litigating in Poland face an additional layer of complexity. Cost recovery rules interact with jurisdiction questions, enforcement of foreign judgments, and the choice between court litigation and arbitration Poland. Getting this architecture right at the outset determines not just the probability of success, but the economic value of that success.

For disputes governed by contracts with foreign parties, the Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości (Ministry of Justice) framework for international service of process adds time and cost. Service under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial Documents typically takes 60 to 90 days. That period generates costs that are recoverable in principle but require careful documentation. A party that fails to preserve the evidence of service costs forfeits recovery.

We obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 3.5m for a US technology company's Polish subsidiary in the Silesia region (spring 2026). The client had entered Poland through a joint venture structure. Early attention to the cost recovery framework allowed us to structure the interim application in a way that minimised the client's exposure if the main claim failed.

Arbitration in Poland operates outside the KPC cost tariff system. Arbitral tribunals have broad discretion to allocate costs, including actual attorney fees, based on the outcome and the conduct of the parties. For disputes above PLN 500,000, arbitration often produces better net cost recovery for the winning party than court litigation. The trade-off is the arbitration fee itself, which is typically higher than court filing fees. Foreign investors should model both routes before choosing a dispute resolution clause. For US companies doing business in Poland, a detailed analysis of this choice is available at our guide on dispute resolution for US companies in Poland.

Enforcement of foreign judgments in Poland follows EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) for EU-origin judgments, which are enforceable without exequatur. For non-EU judgments, enforcement requires a separate Polish court proceeding. The costs of that enforcement proceeding are themselves subject to the KPC tariff framework and are recoverable if enforcement succeeds. The timeline for a non-EU enforcement proceeding ranges from six to eighteen months depending on the complexity of the challenge raised by the debtor.

Sanctions compliance is a separate but increasingly relevant consideration for cross-border disputes. A party subject to EU or US sanctions may face restrictions on receiving litigation proceeds or paying legal fees. Before initiating proceedings involving counterparties in sanctioned jurisdictions, a sanctions screening review is advisable. Our analysis of screening obligations for Polish companies is available at sanctions screening obligations for Polish companies.

To receive an expert assessment of your cross-border litigation exposure, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

What should businesses prepare before Polish civil proceedings?

Effective cost management in Polish litigation begins before the first document is filed. The following checklist sets out the minimum preparation steps that materially affect both the likelihood of full cost recovery and the ability to enforce any award obtained.

  • Verify the counterparty's financial standing through KRS records and any available credit information before filing – a cost award against an insolvent defendant has no practical value.
  • Prepare a complete cost specification document listing all anticipated fees, court charges, translation costs, and expert fees, with supporting invoices organised by category.
  • Assess whether a formal settlement offer should be made at the outset – a well-timed written offer shifts post-offer cost risk to the opposing party if the final award does not exceed the offer.
  • Confirm jurisdiction and applicable procedural rules, particularly where a foreign party or arbitration clause is involved – the choice between KPC litigation and arbitration has direct consequences for recoverable attorney fees.
  • For insolvency-adjacent disputes, review the timeline for any parallel insolvency proceedings – cost recovery in civil proceedings may be affected by stays or automatic set-off rules under insolvency law. Our overview of the insolvency proceedings timeline is available at insolvency proceedings timeline from filing to closure.

Each of these steps requires judgment about the specific facts of the dispute. A manufacturing company in Wielkopolska facing a PLN 2,000,000 supply chain claim will approach this checklist differently from an IT services provider in Warsaw disputing a EUR 150,000 software licence fee. The instruments are the same; the weighting changes.

Your company's specific situation involves irreversible consequences if cost documentation is not prepared before the final hearing. That window cannot be reopened after judgment. To discuss how the cost recovery framework applies to your proceedings, email info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does it take to receive a cost order after a Polish court judgment?

A: The cost order is issued as part of the judgment itself, not as a separate decision. Once the judgment becomes final – typically 14 days after service if no appeal is filed – the cost order is enforceable. Enforcement through a court bailiff (komornik) generally takes between three and six months for straightforward cases, longer where the debtor disputes the enforcement or lacks liquid assets.

Q: Is it a misconception that Polish courts always award actual attorney fees?

A: Yes. Many foreign clients assume that winning a case means recovering the fees actually paid to their lawyers. Polish courts apply statutory tariff rates, not actual fees. The tariff for a PLN 500,000 claim is PLN 5,400 at the base rate. Even with the six-times multiplier in an exceptional case, recovery reaches PLN 32,400 – which may represent a fraction of actual counsel costs. Budgeting for this gap is essential before initiating proceedings.

Q: Can costs be recovered in settlement agreements approved by a Polish court?

A: Yes. A court-approved settlement (ugoda sądowa) can include a costs provision agreed by the parties. If the settlement is silent on costs, each party typically bears its own. Parties are free to negotiate cost allocation as part of settlement terms, and a well-drafted settlement clause can achieve better cost recovery than a contested judgment – particularly where the tariff gap is large. The court's approval of the settlement does not override a freely negotiated costs clause.

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, cost recovery strategy, 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.

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.