How to Recover a Debt from a Company in Poland

Recovering a debt from a company in Poland involves a structured legal process that moves from pre-litigation demand through court proceedings to enforcement against the debtor's assets. The fastest national route for straightforward, documented claims is the Electronic Writ-of-Payment Procedure (EPU), handled exclusively by the court in Lublin. Understanding the procedural sequence, realistic timelines and the practical pitfalls that affect foreign creditors is essential before committing resources to a Polish debt recovery action.

Legal Framework for Debt Collection in Poland

Polish civil debt recovery is governed primarily by the Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego). For cross-border claims within the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments (Brussels I Recast) is directly applicable, meaning a judgment obtained in another EU Member State can be enforced in Poland without a separate exequatur procedure, and vice versa.

Late payment interest on commercial transactions is regulated by the Act on Counteracting Excessive Payment Delays in Commercial Transactions, which implements EU Directive 2011/7/EU. That Act entitles creditors to statutory interest from the day after the payment deadline expires, without requiring a formal notice. The applicable rate is set periodically by the Minister of Finance and is higher than standard civil interest. Where a contractual rate exists, it governs, subject to statutory caps on excessive interest.

Before initiating court proceedings, it is advisable to verify the debtor's standing through the KRS (National Court Register, Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy), which is publicly searchable and reveals the company's registered address, directors, share capital, and any pending insolvency or restructuring proceedings. A company in restructuring may be subject to a moratorium on enforcement, which affects your strategy materially.

Step-by-Step Procedure

Step 1 – Pre-Litigation Demand

Send a formal written demand (wezwanie do zapłaty) to the debtor's registered address as shown in the KRS. The demand should specify the principal sum, the contractual or statutory interest accrued to the date of the letter, and a reasonable deadline for payment – typically 14 days. This step is not a statutory precondition in all cases, but Polish courts expect evidence that the creditor made a reasonable attempt to resolve the matter out of court. It also starts the paper trail you will need for the claim.

For international creditors, the demand should be in Polish or accompanied by a certified translation. Correspondence sent only in a foreign language may be disputed as not effectively received, complicating the timeline.

Step 2 – Choose the Appropriate Procedure

Poland offers several court tracks for monetary claims. The most relevant for foreign commercial creditors are:

• Electronic Writ-of-Payment Procedure (EPU): Filed online via the dedicated e-court system, handled exclusively by the Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Zachód (District Court Lublin-West). This is the fastest route for undisputed, document-backed claims. The court issues a payment order without a hearing. If the debtor objects, the case is transferred to the competent ordinary court.
• Ordinary writ-of-payment procedure (nakaz zapłaty w postępowaniu nakazowym): Available where the claim is supported by a bill of exchange, cheque, or certain other specific instruments. It grants the creditor interim enforceability immediately upon issue of the order, which is a significant tactical advantage.
• Simplified procedure (postępowanie uproszczone): Applies to contract claims below a prescribed value threshold. It follows a more streamlined paper-based track.
• Ordinary contentious procedure: Used for high-value or complex claims, or where the debtor is likely to contest liability. A hearing before the competent regional or district court is required.

For most straightforward unpaid invoice situations involving a documented commercial relationship, the EPU is the default starting point. If the claim is contested or exceeds the EPU's evidentiary limitations, transferring to ordinary proceedings is unavoidable.

Step 3 – Prepare and File the Claim

The claim must include: identification of both parties (with KRS data for the debtor), a precise statement of the amount claimed including principal and interest calculated to the filing date, the legal basis for the claim, and supporting documents. Core documents typically include the contract or purchase order, invoices, delivery confirmations or acceptance protocols, and any correspondence acknowledging the debt.

For EPU filings, all documents are uploaded electronically and the court fee is paid online. The fee is calculated as a percentage of the claim value, subject to the scale set in the Act on Court Costs in Civil Cases. Foreign creditors should ensure they have a Polish address for service or appoint a professional representative (pełnomocnik) – commonly an adwokat or radca prawny – to receive court correspondence. Failure to maintain a valid service address is one of the most common procedural errors made by international claimants.

Step 4 – Obtain the Payment Order or Judgment

In an uncontested EPU, the court issues the payment order without notifying the debtor in advance. Once served on the debtor, the debtor has a statutory period to lodge an objection (sprzeciw). If no objection is filed within that period, the order becomes enforceable and you may proceed to enforcement.

If the debtor objects, the EPU court transfers the case to the district or regional court with territorial jurisdiction over the debtor. From that point, the case follows ordinary contentious procedure, with exchange of written submissions and, where necessary, a hearing. Realistic timelines for ordinary proceedings vary considerably depending on the court's workload; proceedings before the busier commercial courts in Warsaw or Kraków can extend to a year or more for a first-instance judgment.

Step 5 – Asset Freezing (Interim Measures)

Where there is a genuine risk that the debtor will dissipate assets before judgment, a creditor may apply for an interim measure (zabezpieczenie roszczenia) either before or during proceedings. The court may freeze bank accounts, register a charge over real property, or appoint a custodian. The applicant must demonstrate both the existence of the claim (at least on a prima facie basis) and the legal interest in securing it.

A freezing order obtained in another EU Member State under Brussels I Recast, or under the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) Regulation for bank accounts, may also be executed in Poland through the Polish enforcement authority (komornik sądowy), providing a cross-border tool for creditors who have already obtained such orders abroad.

Step 6 – Enforcement of Judgment

A final and enforceable judgment or payment order is submitted to a komornik sądowy (court enforcement officer) together with an enforcement clause (klauzula wykonalności) affixed by the court. The bailiff then conducts enforcement proceedings, which may include: seizure of bank accounts, attachment of receivables owed to the debtor by its own customers, seizure of movable assets, or mortgage enforcement over real property.

Before instructing the bailiff, it is worth conducting a preliminary asset search. The creditor or their representative can request disclosure of the debtor's assets from the KRS, the land register (księga wieczysta), and – through the bailiff – from ZUS (social insurance) and the tax authority. A debtor that has transferred assets to related parties shortly before enforcement may attract an action under the actio Pauliana provision of the Polish Civil Code, which allows the creditor to challenge transactions made in fraud of creditors.

For enforcement of judgments obtained outside Poland, the Brussels I Recast framework removes the need for a declaration of enforceability for EU judgments. Non-EU judgments require a separate recognition procedure before a Polish court, and the applicable conditions depend on whether a bilateral treaty exists between Poland and the judgment's country of origin.

If you are at the stage of assessing whether to pursue enforcement or considering interim measures, our team can provide a focused analysis of the debtor's known asset position and the most efficient procedural route. Contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.

Realistic Timelines

Timelines in Polish debt recovery depend heavily on whether the claim is contested. As a general orientation:

• Pre-litigation demand: 14–21 days before escalation is typical.
• EPU (uncontested): From filing to an enforceable order, often a matter of weeks, provided the debtor does not object and service is effected without delay.
• EPU with objection, transferred to ordinary court: The ordinary phase can add many months, particularly in larger commercial courts.
• Ordinary contentious proceedings (first instance): Commonly 6–18 months depending on complexity and court location, though complex cases can take longer.
• Appeal (second instance): Several additional months if the losing party appeals to the regional or appellate court.
• Enforcement phase: Timelines depend on the bailiff's workload and the nature of assets being targeted. Bank account seizure is generally faster than real property enforcement.

These orientations should be treated as planning ranges rather than guarantees. Court backlogs, service difficulties – especially where the debtor has changed its registered address without updating the KRS – and debtor obstruction tactics can all extend the timeline materially.

Key Cost Drivers

Cost in Polish debt recovery proceedings is driven by several factors:

• Court fees: Calculated as a proportion of the claim value under the statutory scale. EPU filings attract a lower rate than ordinary proceedings.
• Professional representation: Engaging a Polish adwokat or radca prawny is strongly advisable for foreign creditors. Their fees depend on the complexity of the matter and the agreed fee structure.
• Translation costs: All documents in a foreign language must be accompanied by certified translations into Polish.
• Bailiff fees: The enforcement officer charges fees regulated by statute, typically calculated as a percentage of the recovered amount, subject to minimum and maximum thresholds.
• Recovery of costs: The losing party in Polish civil proceedings is generally ordered to reimburse the winning party's reasonable costs, including professional fees calculated according to the official scale. However, recovery of costs is only as effective as the debtor's solvency and asset position.

Common Errors by Foreign Creditors

International businesses pursuing Polish debtors frequently encounter avoidable difficulties. The most common include:

• Failing to verify the debtor's current KRS status before filing – a company that has been dissolved, transformed, or entered insolvency proceedings requires a different approach entirely.
• Sending pre-litigation demands and correspondence only in a foreign language, creating a later dispute about effective service.
• Not appointing a Polish address for service, causing critical procedural documents to go undelivered and triggering default consequences against the creditor.
• Underestimating the debtor's ability to delay proceedings through objections and procedural motions, and therefore not pursuing interim asset-freezing measures early enough.
• Overlooking the possibility of insolvency or restructuring proceedings that may impose an automatic stay on individual enforcement – a matter that must be checked both at the outset and throughout the proceeding.
• Misjudging the interaction between a foreign choice-of-law clause and Polish mandatory provisions; a contractual choice of foreign law does not necessarily displace Polish mandatory rules on late payment interest or consumer-adjacent protections.

When Insolvency Becomes Relevant

If the debtor is insolvent or close to it, the debt recovery strategy shifts substantially. A debtor that has filed for bankruptcy (upadłość) is subject to collective insolvency proceedings, and individual enforcement is generally stayed. The creditor must file a proof of claim (zgłoszenie wierzytelności) with the insolvency administrator within the prescribed period; failure to do so may result in the claim being excluded from the distribution.

Alternatively, Polish law provides for restructuring proceedings (postępowanie restrukturyzacyjne) under the Restructuring Law of 2015, which allows a viable but financially distressed company to reach an arrangement with its creditors. Creditors participate in the proceedings and vote on the proposed arrangement. Understanding the procedural posture of the debtor at any given moment is therefore critical to selecting the right strategy.

For matters that intersect with insolvency or restructuring, further guidance is available on our bankruptcy and restructuring practice page for Poland.

Decision Checklist for International Creditors

Before instructing counsel to initiate formal proceedings, consider the following:

• Is the debtor still active and solvent? Check the KRS and the Central Restructuring and Bankruptcy Register (Centralny Rejestr Restrukturyzacji i Upadłości, CRRU).
• Do you have a clear, documented paper trail – contract, invoices, delivery evidence, payment reminders?
• Is the claim undisputed on liability, making the EPU a realistic fast-track option?
• Is there a risk of asset dissipation that would warrant an immediate application for interim measures?
• Does your contract include a governing law and jurisdiction clause, and have you assessed its interaction with Polish procedural rules?
• If the debtor is EU-based and you already hold a judgment, have you assessed enforceability under Brussels I Recast?
• Is the claim economically justified after factoring in likely court fees, translation costs, professional fees, and realistic recovery prospects?

Our debt recovery practice in Poland advises international clients on each stage of this process, from pre-litigation assessment through to enforcement. If you would like to discuss your specific situation, please reach out to us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or via our contacts page.

Cross-Border Considerations

For creditors based outside the EU, enforcing a foreign judgment in Poland requires a separate recognition procedure before a Polish court. The conditions depend on whether a bilateral treaty on mutual recognition of judgments exists between Poland and the creditor's home jurisdiction. Absent a treaty, the Polish court will examine whether the foreign judgment meets the conditions set out in the Code of Civil Procedure for recognition of non-EU judgments – including reciprocity, proper service, and absence of conflict with Polish public policy.

Creditors who are evaluating whether to litigate in Poland or in another jurisdiction as the primary forum – particularly where there are assets or enforcement considerations in multiple countries – may find it useful to consider how enforcement of judgments operates comparatively. Our analysis of enforcing judgments in Singapore under the REFJA framework illustrates how different statutory regimes approach recognition and enforcement, which can inform multi-jurisdictional debt recovery planning.

For a preliminary assessment of your claim's prospects in Poland, including an analysis of the debtor's KRS standing and the most appropriate procedural route, contact our team at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page.

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.