A Western European technology company had secured a commercial award from an arbitral tribunal seated in Western Europe. The award carried significant monetary value. The debtor – a Polish entity – held its principal assets in Poland. Without local recognition and enforcement, the award remained unenforceable where the money actually was.
Foreign judgment and award enforcement in Poland requires a formal recognition procedure before Polish civil courts. Where the New York Convention (the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) applies. Polish civil procedure rules govern the application process and set out the limited grounds on which recognition may be refused. The process typically takes between three and nine months depending on court workload and the completeness of the submitted documentation.
This case study outlines how the matter was structured, the complications encountered at each stage, and the lessons that carry over to similar cross-border enforcement situations in Poland.
Client profile and the legal challenge
The client was a mid-size B2B software licensor incorporated in Western Europe. It had entered a multi-year distribution agreement with a Polish counterparty. A pricing dispute escalated, and the parties proceeded to arbitration under ICC Rules (the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce). The seat of arbitration was in a signatory state to the New York Convention. The award was rendered in the client's favour.
The Polish respondent declined to pay voluntarily. Asset searches confirmed that the debtor held receivables and real property in Poland. Enforcement therefore had to proceed through Polish courts. The client had no prior experience with Polish civil procedure. It also faced a tight window: the debtor was undergoing a partial asset transfer that could dilute the recoverable base.
Two procedural paths were available. The first was enforcement under the New York Convention directly, relying on Poland's implementing legislation within its civil procedure rules. The second involved the EU Regulation on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – but that instrument applies to court judgments from EU Member States, not to arbitral awards. The correct instrument was the Convention framework, applied through Polish procedural rules.
Strategy: sequencing recognition and interim relief
The team filed an application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award before the competent Polish regional court (sąd okręgowy. the court of general jurisdiction at regional level for enforcement applications of this type). The application set out the grounds for recognition under the Convention and attached the authenticated award and the arbitration agreement, both with certified Polish translations.
Simultaneously, the team applied for interim protective measures over identified Polish assets. Polish civil procedure rules allow a creditor holding a foreign award to seek such measures in parallel with the recognition application. This was critical: it prevented the debtor from completing the asset transfer before the enforcement title was issued.
The strategy relied on two sequenced moves – securing the assets first, then converting the award into an enforceable Polish title. This sequence is not automatic. It requires demonstrating to the Polish court both the existence of the award and a credible risk of dissipation. The team prepared detailed asset evidence and a concise risk narrative. The interim order was granted within weeks of filing.
For clients with similar cross-border disputes, our litigation and arbitration practice in Poland provides end-to-end support from award recognition through to asset recovery.
Key milestones and complications
The recognition proceedings moved through three distinct phases, each with its own complications.
Phase one – document authentication. Polish courts require the original award or a certified copy, the original arbitration agreement, and certified translations into Polish. The client's award had been issued in English. The translator engaged initially was not a sworn translator recognised under Polish law. The court rejected the first filing on this ground alone. A sworn translator (tłumacz przysięgły – a court-certified translator under Polish translation legislation) was engaged for a corrected submission. This caused a delay of approximately three weeks.
Phase two – respondent's opposition. The debtor filed a response invoking two grounds for refusal under the New York Convention: first, that the arbitration agreement was allegedly invalid under Polish law. second. That recognition would be contrary to Polish public policy (klauzula porządku publicznego – the public policy exception in Polish private international law). Both grounds were contested in written submissions. The court ultimately rejected them. On the validity point, the court applied the law of the seat of arbitration to assess the agreement's validity, consistent with the Convention's own conflict-of-law rule. On public policy, the court confirmed that this ground is applied narrowly: procedural fairness and basic due process, not substantive disagreement with the award's merits.
Phase three – enforcement title and execution. Once the recognition order became final, it was submitted to a Polish court enforcement officer (komornik sądowy – a court bailiff under Polish enforcement legislation). The bailiff levied execution against the identified receivables. The real property attachment proceeded separately through land registry proceedings. Full execution was completed within the overall timeline of approximately eight months from the initial filing.
For matters where the underlying dispute also involves Polish corporate governance or shareholder issues, our team handling corporate disputes in Poland regularly works alongside enforcement counsel to coordinate strategy across both fronts.
To explore how a similar enforcement strategy could apply to your situation in Poland, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Transferable lessons for cross-border enforcement in Poland
Lesson one – translation quality is a threshold issue, not a formality. Polish courts will reject filings that rely on non-sworn translations. This is not a correctable deficiency at the hearing stage. It causes delay and signals procedural carelessness to the court. Engage a tłumacz przysięgły from the outset. The cost is modest relative to the risk of a rejected filing.
Lesson two – interim measures must be filed immediately and in parallel. Polish civil procedure rules permit interim protective orders alongside recognition applications. Waiting for the recognition order to become final before seeking asset protection is a common mistake. By that point, movable assets may have been transferred or encumbered. Creditors who act in parallel typically preserve a substantially larger recoverable pool than those who act sequentially.
Lesson three – public policy and validity objections are narrow but must be anticipated. The public policy exception under the New York Convention is interpreted restrictively by Polish courts. It does not permit a merits review of the arbitral award. However, respondents routinely invoke it as a delaying tactic. Creditors should prepare a concise rebuttal at the filing stage rather than waiting for the debtor's opposition. This shortens the response cycle and demonstrates procedural confidence to the court.
A related enforcement matter in a different civil law jurisdiction is examined in our case study on foreign judgment enforcement in Portugal, which addresses comparable recognition principles under the Portuguese procedural system.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our litigation and arbitration practice covers award enforcement, recognition of foreign judgments, and cross-border asset recovery across both civil law and common law systems. We support international creditors navigating the procedural requirements of Polish courts, including recognition applications under the New York Convention, UNCITRAL-based proceedings, and interim protective measures. The firm's attorneys have advised on award enforcement matters before courts in Central and Eastern Europe, working across 15 practice areas with a dual foundation in Portuguese civil law and English common law. As an international law firm in Poland and across Europe, we work with institutional clients and international entrepreneurs who need a lawyer in Poland with genuine cross-border execution capability. To discuss your enforcement situation in Poland, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.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. Ferraz & Whitmore 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@ferrazwhitmore.com.