Recovering a commercial debt in Poland involves a structured set of legal procedures – from the fast-track Electronic Writ-of-Payment Procedure (EPU) through to full enforcement against a debtor's assets – and international creditors have access to additional EU instruments that can freeze bank accounts across borders or produce a judgment enforceable throughout the European Union without further court approval. When a Polish counterparty has stopped paying, the choice of procedure, the timing of steps, and the quality of evidence assembled at the outset will all influence how quickly a claim is resolved. Ferraz & Whitmore advises international businesses and funds on every stage of this process, from the first demand letter to final enforcement.
When Does Debt Recovery in Poland Become Necessary?
Most commercial disputes begin with missed payment deadlines, disputed invoices, or a counterparty entering financial difficulties. International clients tend to contact us at one of three moments: when a Polish sp. z o.o. or other entity has ignored payment demands for several weeks; when a restructuring or insolvency proceeding has been opened against the debtor; or when a judgment obtained abroad needs to be enforced against Polish assets. Each scenario calls for a different opening strategy.
A late-paying debtor in Poland is subject to statutory late payment interest under Polish law, and creditors should document the accrual of that interest from the earliest possible date – it forms part of the recoverable claim. Before initiating court proceedings, it is worth verifying the debtor's corporate status in the KRS (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, the National Court Register) and assessing the likelihood of actual recovery, including whether the debtor has attachable assets or active bank accounts.
Core Legal Instruments Available to Creditors
The Electronic Writ-of-Payment Procedure (EPU)
For uncontested or straightforward monetary claims, the Electronic Writ-of-Payment Procedure (EPU), administered centrally by the court in Lublin, is typically the fastest domestic route. The application is filed electronically, and if the claim is uncontested the court issues a payment order that can then be used as the basis for enforcement. If the debtor raises an objection, the matter is transferred to ordinary proceedings. The EPU is best suited to cases where the factual basis is clear and documentation – such as invoices, contracts, and delivery confirmations – is complete.
Ordinary and Abbreviated Proceedings
Where the claim is contested or more complex, ordinary civil proceedings before a Polish district or regional court apply. Polish procedural law also provides for an abbreviated (writ) procedure in specific categories of case. In all routes, the quality of documentary evidence prepared before filing directly affects both the timeline and the prospects of an early judgment.
Asset Freezing Before and During Proceedings
A creditor who fears that assets will be dissipated can apply for a precautionary attachment (zabezpieczenie roszczenia) at any stage, including before a claim is filed. This is a critical tool in cases where the debtor is moving assets or approaching insolvency. The court assesses both the likelihood of success on the merits and the risk of non-enforcement if the measure is not granted.
Cross-Border Instruments for International Creditors
International creditors operating across the EU benefit from two powerful regulatory instruments that can work alongside or independently of Polish national proceedings.
European Payment Order
Under Regulation (EC) 1896/2006, a creditor with an uncontested cross-border monetary claim can apply for a European Payment Order using standard forms. If the debtor does not oppose the order within the prescribed period, it becomes enforceable in all EU Member States – including Poland – without any further exequatur procedure. Denmark is excluded from the regulation. This instrument is particularly useful when a Polish debtor has assets elsewhere in the EU, or when the creditor is based in another Member State.
European Account Preservation Order (EAPO)
Under Regulation (EU) 655/2014, a creditor domiciled in the EU can apply on an ex parte basis to freeze a debtor's bank accounts in another EU Member State before the debtor is aware of the proceedings. The regulation also provides an account information mechanism that can compel disclosure of which banks hold the debtor's funds. Like the European Payment Order, the EAPO does not apply in Denmark. This instrument is especially valuable when a creditor has reason to believe a Polish debtor is moving funds to accounts held in other EU jurisdictions.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Poland
Where a creditor already holds a judgment obtained outside Poland, the route to enforcement depends on the legal framework connecting the two jurisdictions. Within the EU, existing EU regulations on recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments apply. For judgments from outside the EU, the position is more nuanced.
The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 is currently in force for the EU (excluding Denmark), Ukraine, and Uruguay. For the United Kingdom, it will apply from 1 July 2025, but only to proceedings instituted after that date between the UK and each relevant state party. Albania and Montenegro will become bound from 1 March 2026, and Andorra from 1 June 2026. It is important to note that only judgments arising from proceedings instituted after the Convention has entered into force as between both states in question will benefit from its simplified recognition mechanism. Older UK-EU judgments continue to rely on the Hague Convention of 2005 (where an exclusive choice-of-court agreement exists) or on national exequatur rules in the relevant Member State.
If your organisation holds or is seeking a judgment involving a UK counterparty or a non-EU debtor, the applicable framework requires careful analysis before enforcement steps are taken in Poland.
For a structured comparison with recovery procedures in a neighbouring jurisdiction, see our overview of debt recovery in the Czech Republic.
If you are dealing with a cross-border enforcement question or need to assess which instrument best fits your situation, our team is available to discuss the options. Please write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.
Step-by-Step: How the Recovery Process Works
The full procedural walkthrough – covering pre-litigation steps, court filings, objection handling, enforcement orders, and bailiff proceedings – is set out in our detailed guide. Rather than repeat that analysis here, we encourage clients who need granular procedural guidance to consult the step-by-step guide to recovering a debt from a company in Poland.
In outline, the process moves from written demand and evidence assembly through to the selection of the appropriate court procedure, obtaining a payment order or judgment, and then enforcing that judgment against the debtor's assets – whether bank accounts, real property, or receivables owed to the debtor by third parties. Each stage involves distinct tactical choices, and the decisions made early in the process have lasting consequences for the timeline and outcome.
Common Pitfalls for International Creditors
- Incomplete documentation: Polish courts require well-organised, translated documentary evidence. Incomplete contract files, missing delivery records, or unauthenticated foreign documents frequently delay proceedings.
- Underestimating the debtor's corporate structure: A Polish sp. z o.o. may be part of a wider group, with assets held at holding-company level. Understanding the group structure – using KRS and other public records – is essential before selecting a recovery strategy.
- Failing to act quickly enough: Where a debtor is in financial difficulty, delay in filing for a precautionary attachment can mean that assets are dissipated before enforcement is possible. Early intervention, even before proceedings on the merits, is often warranted.
- Overlooking insolvency proceedings: If a restructuring or bankruptcy (upadłość) proceeding has already been opened against the debtor, ordinary debt collection routes are stayed by operation of law, and the creditor must file a proof of claim within the insolvency. Our bankruptcy and restructuring practice in Poland handles this intersection.
- Assuming reciprocal enforcement without checking the applicable framework: Not all foreign judgments are automatically enforceable in Poland. The available route – whether an EU regulation, the Hague Conventions, or national exequatur – depends on the origin of the judgment and the date proceedings were commenced.
- Mis-identifying the supervising authority: Certain regulated debtors (such as financial institutions supervised by the KNF, the Polish Financial Supervision Authority) are subject to specific enforcement constraints that do not apply to ordinary commercial entities.
How Ferraz & Whitmore Approaches Debt Recovery in Poland
Our approach is built around three priorities: speed of assessment, clarity on prospects, and coordination across jurisdictions. When a client brings a Polish debt recovery matter to us, we begin with a rapid review of the underlying documentation and the debtor's public record, including the KRS filing, to assess what can realistically be recovered and within what timeframe.
We advise on the sequencing of pre-litigation and litigation steps, select the appropriate court procedure, and – where the EU cross-border instruments are relevant – coordinate their use with local filings to maximise pressure on the debtor. Where the debtor has assets in multiple jurisdictions, we work with our network of correspondent counsel to ensure that enforcement actions proceed in parallel rather than sequentially.
Our clients include trading companies, private equity funds, and financial institutions with exposure to Polish counterparties. We are familiar with the particular complexities that arise when the debtor is a Polish subsidiary of a foreign group, when the governing law of the contract is not Polish law, or when the creditor itself is organised under a non-EU legal system.
The Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court of Poland) has issued significant guidance over the years on evidentiary standards and procedural requirements in commercial debt cases; our team monitors relevant jurisprudence as part of ongoing case preparation.
Self-Assessment: Is Your Claim Ready to Pursue?
Before instructing counsel, it is useful to consider the following questions:
- Do you have a signed contract or purchase order establishing the payment obligation?
- Can you demonstrate delivery of goods or services (delivery notes, acceptance protocols, correspondence)?
- Have you sent a formal written demand to the debtor, and do you have evidence of delivery?
- Do you know the debtor's current registered address and whether its KRS entry is up to date?
- Is the debtor currently subject to any restructuring or insolvency proceeding?
- Do you have information about the debtor's assets or bank accounts in Poland or elsewhere in the EU?
- Is the claim within any applicable limitation period under Polish law?
If you cannot answer all of these questions with confidence, that is precisely where early legal advice adds the most value – identifying gaps in the evidence before they become obstacles in court.
To discuss a specific recovery matter or to request an initial assessment of your documentation, please contact our team at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or through our contacts page.
The Cross-Border Dimension: Multiple Jurisdictions, One Strategy
International creditors frequently face situations where the debtor, its assets, and the governing law of the contract are spread across different jurisdictions. A Polish entity may bank in Germany, hold real property through a Czech subsidiary, and have contracted under English law. In such cases, a single-jurisdiction approach will often be insufficient.
The European Account Preservation Order is one tool for reaching accounts in other EU states, but its use must be coordinated with proceedings on the merits. The European Payment Order provides a streamlined route to an EU-wide enforceable title, but it is not appropriate where the claim is genuinely contested. For non-EU enforcement – whether against assets in the UK, Ukraine, or other third countries – the applicable treaty framework, or its absence, shapes the entire strategy.
Ferraz & Whitmore's cross-border practice is designed precisely for these multi-layered situations. We advise from a central point of contact while coordinating with local practitioners in each relevant jurisdiction, ensuring that the overall recovery strategy is coherent and that steps taken in one jurisdiction do not inadvertently prejudice the position in another.
For matters involving assets or parties in more than one country, we welcome the opportunity to map out the available options with you. Reach us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or via 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.