In Poland, several options are available to identify the asset position of another party. First, one can search for assets using publicly available information. There is an online public registry of entrepreneurs (legal entities and natural persons conducting business activity are considered separately) as well as a land and mortgage register. However, in this last case, only some groups of professionals (for example notaries) may search databases using keywords such as names, etc. There are also other useful sources of information that might help to identify assets of another party, such as the Register of Pledges or Court and Business Gazette (Monitor Sądowy i Gospodarczy). It would always depend on the nature of the case whether more specific and appropriate sources of information be used. Second, it is also possible to hire a business intelligence agency, available on the Polish market, which can evaluate the credibility of another party or look for its assets. Further, there are provisions on the disclosure of property, which are set out in the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (the PCCP) (see 2.4 Post-judgment Procedures for Determining Defendants' Assets).
If assets are identified, freezing orders are available; these are regulated by the provisions of Second Part of the PCCP (Security of claims, Article 730 et seq). Security may be requested in each civil case heard by the court (including the arbitration court) even before the trial starts. Security may be requested by each party or participant to proceedings if he or she substantiates their claim and legal interest in the security for a claim. A legal interest exists if the lack of security would prevent or significantly hinder the enforcement of a ruling issued in a given case, or otherwise prevent or seriously hinder satisfying the purpose of proceedings.
In theory, a petition for security shall be heard immediately, but in no case later than one week from the day on which the petition is filed with the court, unless otherwise provided for by a specific provision. In practice, this can take up to two weeks.
Monetary claims shall be secured by means of:
If the object of security is other than a monetary claim, the court awards such security as it deems fit in the circumstances, not excluding security applicable to monetary claims. In particular, the court may:
The meaning of “enforcement order” (tytuł egzekucyjny) is defined in the PCCP. In general, an enforcement order, together with a declaration of enforceability (klauzula wykonalności), provides an enforceable title (tytuł wykonawczy), which is the basis for execution. There are several types of enforcement orders:
Furthermore, other rulings, settlements or deeds enforceable by court execution constitute an enforceable title under the relevant legislation. An enforceable title may also be constituted by a notarial deed whereby a debtor or other person specified by law submits themselves to its execution if other specified conditions are met (Article 777 of the PCCP). Enforcement titles in Poland also include rulings issued in EU member states (Article 1153(14) of the PCCP).
Finally, if judgments issued in EU member states covering protection measures, included in the scope of EU Regulation No 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters (Protection Measures Regulation), are executable in a manner other than enforcement, they can also be used as a basis for the commencement of execution proceedings (Article 1153(15) of the PCCP).
As a rule, judgments in commercial cases are enforceable; in particular:
In order to enforce a domestic judgment, the procedure set out in the PCCP has to be followed. First, a declaration of enforceability has to be obtained. There is no requirement to appoint an attorney to file an application for a declaration of enforceability or to provide security for costs.
In principle, the court of the first instance where the case has been pending will issue a writ of execution for a court's enforcement title. The court of the second instance may also be entitled to issue such a writ as long as the case files remain with that court. It should be noted, however, that this does not apply to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland (Sąd Najwyższy) and to some other specific cases listed in the Article 781, Section 1 of the PCCP. The enforceability may be challenged in the appeal procedure.
It must be also noted that the court may refuse to issue a writ of execution if in light of the circumstances of the case and the contents of the enforceable title (Article 782(1) PCCP):
After obtaining a declaration of enforceability, the creditor must file an application for initiation of the enforcement proceedings with the relevant court enforcement officer (komornik sądowy). There are some obligatory elements to the application, such as the copy of the judgment and confirmation of stamp duty payment, as well as voluntary ones such as a power of attorney.
An application must contain information that identifies the obligation to be satisfied, and it must be accompanied by an enforcement order with a declaration of enforceability. If the contents of the enforceable order stipulate that the limitation period for the claim being enforced has expired, the application must be appended with a document stating that the limitation period has been suspended. It is worth noting that it is possible to submit an electronic application for the enforcement title referred to in Article 783, Section 4 of the PCCP.
The creditor must indicate in the application the manner of execution (for example, execution of real estate, movables or bank accounts). An application for the initiation of execution allows for all methods of execution, except for foreclosure.
Upon the first enforcement action, the debtor is served with the notification of the initiation of enforcement proceedings. The notification provides information concerning the manner of enforcement and is accompanied with a copy of the enforceable title. The court enforcement officer is obliged to present the original enforcement title to the debtor upon request.
After the completion of the enforcement proceedings, the court enforcement officer notes its effect on the enforceable title. The outcome of the execution should be reported in the enforceable title and the enforceable title should be filed, or if the obligation covered by the title was not fully satisfied, the enforceable title should be returned to the creditor. The enforcement officer issues a decision on the costs of the proceeding if such proceedings are ended in any other way than termination.
In the procedure of granting a declaration of enforceability, the defendant is not informed about the ongoing procedure. In theory, pursuant to the Article 781(1) of the PCCP, applications for a declaration of enforceability must be adjudicated by the court immediately, but no later than within three days from the day on which they are filed. In practice, the declaration of enforceability is usually issued no later than two weeks from the date of filing the application. There is no limitation period for applying for a declaration of enforceability.
It should be noted that the time for an enforcement proceeding to be conducted by the court enforcement officer is very hard to determine and will vary depending on a case.
There is a fee in the amount of PLN6 for each page of judgment, unless the party applying for a declaration of enforceability encloses a copy of the final judgment by the court. In cases listed in Article 71 of the Act of 28 July 2005 on court costs in civil cases, the fee for an application for a declaration of enforceability is PLN50.
It should be also noted that the costs of enforcement proceedings conducted by the court enforcement officer will vary depending on the case. The rules on these costs are regulated in the Act of 28 February 2018 on bailiffs costs. In general, the enforcement fee should be paid by the debtor (10% of the enforced claim). However, there are a lot of specific rules and fees, depending on the case, which should be evaluated before entering into enforcement proceedings.
Last but not least, it is advisable to check if any of special regulations related to preventing and combating COVID-19 change the time limits (time limits that had already started to run were suspended for the duration of the epidemic and new time limits that had not yet commenced were suspended until the state of the epidemic was over).
Section V of the PCCP includes provisions on the disclosure of property. If a debtor's property, attached in enforcement proceedings, is unlikely to satisfy the claims that are being enforced or if the creditor proves that the enforcement has not satisfied his or her claims in full, the creditor may request that the debtor be obligated to submit a list of his or her property, specifying particular assets and their location, his or her receivables, and other property rights or information about legal transactions, conducted against payment or free of charge, whose object is an asset or a right that as at the date of the given legal transaction has a value exceeding the minimum remuneration for work fixed pursuant to the Act of 10 October 2002 on the Minimum Remuneration for Work and that is concluded, for the benefit of third parties, within the five-year period preceding the initiation of the enforcement proceedings, as a result of which the debtor became insolvent or became more insolvent than before the conclusion of those legal transactions, and that the debtor made the oath.
The creditor may also request the disclosure of property details before the commencement of execution if:
Regarding domestic judgments, the defendant or a third party can oppose the enforcement procedure using the following means.
Some types of domestic judgments are not enforceable. These are judgments whose content suggests that compulsory enforcement is not possible. For example, the following judgments do not constitute enforcement orders:
There is no official central register of judgments in Poland. However, there is a website (Portal Orzeczeń Sądów Powszechnych) where more than 300,000 rulings are currently available in Polish. No personal data is published there.
There is also the National Register of Debtors (Krajowy Rejestr Dłużników – KRD), which was established in 2003, based on the Act on the Disclosure of Economic Data and the Exchange of Economic Data. This register is currently the largest platform for the exchange of economic information. It records and makes available data on the financial standing of business entities and natural persons.
The KRD lists the names of individuals or entities whose financial liabilities exceed a total amount of PLN200 (in the case of consumers) or PLN500 (in the case of entrepreneurs) and remain unpaid for at least 30 days. All required conditions are specified in the above-mentioned Act.
An individual may, every six months and free of charge, check if his or her name has been shown in the register, thus enabling individuals to see whether someone has, for example, swindled his or her money or taken out a loan in his or her name.
A consumer may check the name of a contractor and if said contractor has been shown in KRD as a debtor, the consumer has the right to change the terms of contract.
The regulations on the enforcement of foreign judgments are specified in Part Three of the PCCP entitled "Enforcement Procedure" (Articles 795(1)-795(17)) and in Book Three of the PCCP, under "Recognition and Confirmation of Enforceability" (Articles 1145 onwards of the PCCP).
For foreign judgments (regarding commercial matters) granted in EU member states, the main applicable laws are Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Regulation) for proceedings instituted before Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation) came into force (that is proceedings entered into before 10 January 2015) and the Recast Brussels Regulation for proceedings entered into after 10 January 2015.
There are also other EU regulations that concern specific proceedings, such as Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (European Enforcement Order Regulation), amended by Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure or Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure.
Regarding foreign judgments (as before, in commercial matters) granted outside the EU, the following laws are applicable:
A judgment issued in an EU member state, enforceable in that member state, is enforceable in other member states without any declaration of enforceability being required and under the same conditions as a judgment given in the member state of enforcement. Therefore, as a rule, all judgments (regarding commercial matters) are enforceable if they are enforceable in the member state where the judgment was issued, and the applicable law will be that of the original member state that issued the judgment.
In the case of judgments rendered outside the EU, and in the absence of any international agreements, the PCCP regulations apply. In general, rulings of foreign state courts issued in civil matters which may be enforced by execution become enforceable titles, once their enforcement has been confirmed by a Polish court. Enforcement is confirmed if a ruling is enforceable in the state of issue and is not blocked by the obstacles referred to in Sections 1 and 2 of Article 1146 of the PCCP.
As stated before, a judgment given in an EU member state is recognised in other member states without any special procedure being required. That is why there are no types of judgments that are a priori excluded from recognition and enforcement, and the applicable law will be that of the original member state which issued the judgment.
Regarding judgments rendered in states outside the EU and in the absence of any international agreements, the PCCP regulations apply. In general, the rulings of foreign state courts in civil matters, which can be enforced by execution, become enforceable titles upon confirmation of their enforcement by a Polish court (as stated in 3.2 Variations In Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments). Therefore, no types of judgments are expressly excluded from recognition and enforcement.
The process of enforcing foreign judgments needs to be considered with regard to judgments issued in the EU member states and countries outside the EU.
With regard to EU judgments, the procedure for the enforcement of judgments given in another EU member state is governed by the law of that member state (Article 41.1 of the Recast Brussels Regulation). In view of the fact that the judgment rendered by the court of a EU member state does not need to be declared enforceable, the relevant documents under the Recast Brussels Regulation must be submitted to the enforcement authority with the application for initiation of the enforcement proceedings (a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity and a certificate issued under Article 53 of the Recast Brussels Regulation).
As mentioned before, a judgment given in a member state is enforceable in other member states without any declaration of enforceability being required (Article 39 of the Recast Brussels Regulation). This is why the enforcement proceedings are governed by the same rules as domestic enforcement proceedings (from the moment of lodging the application to begin the enforcement proceedings). For example, the creditor in Poland has a right to choose a court enforcement officer (except for the execution against immovable property). With regard to non-EU member states, a declaration of enforcement is issued by a regional court (sąd okręgowy) in the place of the debtor's residence or registered office or, if there is no such court, the regional court in whose area enforcement is to be conducted (Article 1151(1), Section 1 of the PCCP).
In these proceedings there is no requirement to appoint an attorney to file an application for a declaration of enforceability. However, it is significant to note that a party who does not have a place of stay or residence, or a registered address in Poland or another EU member state, and who has not appointed a court representative domiciled in Poland, must appoint a representative for delivery in Poland. If such a representative for service is not established, judicial writs addressed to that party are left in the case files and are considered duly served (Article 1135(5) of the PCCP).
It should be also noted that with regard to EU members, a duty to provide security, a bond or deposit cannot be imposed on a party who, in one member state applies for the enforcement of a judgment given in another member state, on the grounds that he or she is a foreign national or he or she is not domiciled or resident in the member state addressed. In contrast to that, with regard to non-EU citizens, if no international agreement applies, and a complaint against a decision to issue an enforcement clause is dismissed, or if a decision to issue a writ of execution is passed, the court of appeal can conditionally enforce the ruling of a foreign state's court if payment of the relevant bail is made by a creditor (Article 1151(2), Section 3 of the PCCP).
In contrast to judgments rendered by courts in EU member states, which do not need to be declared enforceable, non-EU foreign state courts' judgments in civil matters only become enforceable titles once their enforcement is confirmed by a Polish court (Article 1150 of the PCCP). From that point, the enforcement proceedings are governed by the same rules as domestic enforcement proceedings (from the moment of lodging the application to begin the enforcement proceedings).
In the case of an EU foreign judgment, the applicant has to provide following documents with the application for enforcement:
Pursuant to Article 61 of the Recast Brussels Regulation, there is no need to authenticate the required documents. However, the Polish language is the only recognised language in enforcement proceedings in Poland, and, in theory, there is no need to provide a translation of the judgment. The competent enforcement authority can require the applicant to provide a translation of the judgment only if it is unable to proceed without such a translation (Article 42.4 of the Recast Brussels Regulation). Also, the person against whom enforcement is sought may request a translation of the judgment in order to contest the enforcement (under conditions specified in the Article 43 of the Recast Brussels Regulation). Taking the above into consideration, it seems advisable to prepare a translation of the judgment before the enforcement proceedings begin.
In the case of a judgment issued outside the EU, a person who claims enforcement of a ruling of a foreign state court has to provide:
The judgment should be legalised by an authority competent in the state where the judgment was given, unless the state is a party to the HCCH Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents 1961 (Apostille Convention). The Apostille Convention replaces the legalisation process with a less formal certificate (apostille).
For enforcement proceedings concerning judgments issued in EU countries are proceedings, the debtor is not informed about the ongoing procedure. This is why the time it takes to enforce such a judgment shall not vary substantially from the domestic cases described above. However, an enforcement proceeding regarding a judgment issued in the country outside the EU is adversarial, which makes it a longer procedure. A debtor can present to the court his stance in a case within two weeks from the delivery of a copy of a petition (Article 1151(1), Section 2 of the PCCP). The court may hear a petition in camera. The estimated time of the proceedings will be prolonged because of the time needed to deliver a copy of the petition to a debtor, for a debtor to present his statement and for a declaration of enforcement to become non-appealable. It is not only possible to appeal the declaration of enforcement issued by a regional court, but also an appeal in cassation can be filed from the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The fee of the application for a declaration of enforceability of a foreign ruling, or ruling issued by any other foreign authority or settlement made before a foreign court, or other foreign authority, or authorised by a foreign court or a foreign authority, amounts to PLN300.
It should be also noted that the costs of enforcement proceedings conducted by the court enforcement officer will vary depending on a case, but, as with domestic enforcement, the rules on these costs are regulated by the Act of 28 February 2018 on court enforcement officer costs.
Last but not least, it is advisable to check if any of special regulations related to preventing and combating COVID-19 change the time limits (time limits that had already started to run were suspended for the duration of the epidemic, and new time limits that had not yet commenced were suspended until the state of the epidemic was over).
It should be noted that the enforcing court does not review the substance of the foreign judgment.
With regard to the judgments issued in EU member states,as mentioned before, a judgment given in a member state is recognised in other member states without any special procedure being required (Article 36 of the Recast Brussels Regulation). Therefore, the options available to challenge enforcement will always depend on regulations applicable in the EU state of origin. It is especially important to take into consideration the fact that the court or authority before which a judgment given in another member state is invoked can suspend the proceedings, in whole or in part, if the judgment is challenged in the member state of origin. Similarly, a judgment given in a member state is also enforceable in the other member states without any declaration of enforceability being required (Article 39 of the Recast Brussels Regulation).
It should be noted thatthe enforcing authority is not entitled to consider the grounds on which the foreign court assumed jurisdiction, unless the interested party makes an application to refuse the recognition of judgment (Article 45 of the Recast Brussels Regulation). If the judgment conflicts with the specified provisions of the Recast Brussels Regulation concerning jurisdiction, the recognition of the judgment will be refused if the judgment conflicts with the specified provisions of the Recast Brussels Regulation. Firstly, this covers all the conflicts with the jurisdiction provision where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee was the defendant. Secondly, this covers the exclusive jurisdiction provisions, where the courts of a member state have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties. In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction described above, the court to which the application was submitted is bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction.
Regarding service, there are no specific requirements for proper service regarding both EU member states (Recast Brussels Regulation) and other states (PCCP provisions), and the general rules apply. However, the lack of proper service is an important ground for refusal in these proceedings.
With regard to the judgments issued in the non-EU member states, it should be noted that in the absence of any international agreements, the PCCP regulations apply. As a matter of principle, rulings of foreign state courts issued in civil matters are recognised by virtue of law unless there are obstacles as specified in Article 1146 of the PCCP. Pursuant to this Article, there are several grounds for refusal and the enforcing court must examine them. A ruling is not recognised if:
For EU member states, the enforcing court is not required to examine the refusal grounds ex officio (from the court initiative). The grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement are the same; however, the interested party must file an appropriate application. The recognition (enforcement) of judgment must be refused if (Article 45 of the Recast Brussels Regulation):
Another issue that should be clarified is the concept of "public policy", which is important with respect to every foreign judgment. For EU member states, one of the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement is that such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the member state addressed. For non-EU member states, Article 1146 of the PCCP applies in the absence of an international agreement and one of the grounds for refusal recognition and enforcement of the judgment is that such recognition would be contrary to the basic principles of the legal order of Poland.
Therefore, the notion of “public policy” encompasses not only the principles of the Polish Constitution, but also rules governing particular areas of the law. The judgment must comply with the basic rules of the Polish legal system concerning court proceedings and the substantive law. The notion of "public policy" includes fundamental "procedural injustice", which is often understood as a breach of the main procedural rules. For example, one such main rule is the adversarial principle, under which parties are obliged to prove their rights before an impartial judge, who stays neutral and passive during a trial.
A judgment of a foreign court is deemed to infringe the fundamental rules of the Polish legal system if, for instance, the effect of such a judgment is contradictory to the concept of a particular legal institution itself, not only the particular provisions regulating the same institution in both states. For example, the public policy concept applies in a hypothetical situation where a divorce judgment is recognised in Poland, but, at the same time, it is forbidden to dissolve a marriage through divorce in Poland. In this situation, the foreign divorce judgment infringes the public policy principle in Poland. However, the public policy principle will not apply if a divorce judgment is recognised in Poland and only minor law provisions concerning divorce are different in both countries.
The public policy clause aims to prevent the recognition of foreign judgments that do not conform to the fundamental legal standards of Poland. It is not the foreign judgment itself, but the effect of the recognition of the foreign judgment which is irreconcilable with the fundamental rules of the Polish legal system. Therefore, when considering if a foreign court ruling must be subject to public policy principles, the court examines the possible effect of recognition on the Polish legal system.
The main cases where the public policy clause is considered are those concerning family law (including divorce), succession law and litigation (procedural issues).
Last but not least, it should be noted that, in general, the court decision to issue a declaration of enforceability can be appealed. The decision of a regional court concerning the declaration of enforcement can be appealed, and an appeal in cassation can be filed against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the reopening of proceedings which concluded with a non-appealable decision on the issuance of a declaration of enforcement can be requested and a plea of the illegality can be filed. This does not apply to judgments issued in EU states, since there is no need to grant a declaration of enforceability.
The law on the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards is set out in Articles 1212 to 1217 of the PCCP. The UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention) implements the above-mentioned provisions of the PCCP, which are also applicable to all arbitral awards.
Poland is a contracting party to the New York Convention and has adopted this Convention with both available reservations: (i) a reciprocity reservation, under which the state may apply the Convention only to awards issued in another Convention state; and (ii) a commercial reservation, under which the Convention will apply only to disputes regarded as "commercial" under that country's national law. This means that Poland applies the New York Convention only to recognition and enforcement of awards made in the territory of another contracting state, and Poland will only apply the New York Convention to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, that are considered commercial under the national law. According to the information available on the website of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, these restrictions apply to Poland.
Poland is also a party to the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration 1961 (the Geneva Convention).
While there is no definition of an arbitral award for domestic proceedings, there are several conditions that an arbitral award must meet (Article 1197 of the PCCP).
Under Article 1.2 of the New York Convention, the term "arbitral awards" includes both:
Pursuant to Article 1214, Section 1 of the PCCP, the court shall recognise a judgment of an arbitration court or a settlement reached before an arbitration court which cannot be enforced by execution in a decision issued in camera. If a judgment of an arbitration court or a settlement reached before an arbitration court can be enforced by execution, the court confirms enforceability by issuing a declaration of enforceability. The judgment of an arbitration court or the settlement reached before it, whose enforceability has been confirmed, are enforceable titles. As a rule, money awards are enforceable. However, it is only possible to determine if the arbitral award is enforceable after examination of its content.
The domestic arbitral award provisions of the PCCP are applicable for recognition and enforcement. Domestic enforcement proceedings in the first instance are ex parte proceedings (in the absence of one or more parties).
An application for recognition and enforcement must be brought before a court which would have been competent to hear the case if the parties had not made an arbitration clause (Article 1158, Section 1 of the PCCP). It is worth to noting that in domestic arbitral awards, a claim confirmed by an arbitration court ruling is subject to a six-year limitation period, even if the statutory period of limitation for such claims is shorter (Article 125 of the PCCP).
If an arbitration clause has been agreed, the party's petition must include the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof, as well as the original or a duly certified copy of the arbitration clause (or agreement). The certified copy should be made by a notary, consul or it also can be made in accordance with Article 129, Sections 2 and 3 of the PCCP by the party's court agent being an attorney, legal advisor, patent attorney or solicitor of the State Treasury Solicitor's Office. The party is obliged to provide a certified translation in Polish if a judgment of an arbitration court, or a settlement reached before an arbitration court, or an arbitration clause (agreement) is not made in Polish. The translation should be made by a sworn translator or consul.
As a rule, the PCCP does not require any specific information to be included in the application for declaration of enforceability of a domestic arbitration award. However, it seems to be desirable to formulate the application in a way indicating that there are no obstacles to declare enforceability.
The execution procedure, when a declaration of enforceability is granted, is the same as for domestic and foreign judgments.
With regard to the foreign arbitral awards, the statutory provisions of the New York Convention apply if the parties are bound by this, and the provisions of the PCCP also apply. If the award is rendered in the state which is not a party to the New York Convention, the relevant provisions of the PCCP apply.
The court only recognises or confirms the enforcement of a judgment of an arbitration court issued abroad, or a settlement reached before an arbitration court abroad, after trial.
Similarly, as in the case of domestic arbitral awards, an application for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral judgments should be brought before a court which would have been competent to hear a case if the parties had not made an arbitration clause (Article 1158, Section 1 of the PCCP).
In the case of foreign arbitral awards, the issue of limitation periods is covered by the law of the state where the award was issued.
Under Article IV of the New York Convention, the translation must be certified by an official or certified translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent. The legalisation of the award must be made pursuant to provisions of the law where the award is issued (or pursuant to the provisions of the Apostille Convention), if applicable.
As a rule and similar to domestic arbitral awards, the PCCP does not require any specific information to be included in the application for declaration of enforceability of a foreign arbitration award. However, it is advisable to indicate in the application that there are no obstacles to declare enforceability. It is advisable for such an application to include, in particular:
Additionally, under Article V of the New York Convention, is it recommended that the following information be included:
When a declaration of enforceability is granted, the execution procedure is the same as for domestic and foreign judgments.
It is almost impossible to determine the length of proceedings, as enforcement proceedings can vary substantially depending on the case and the court.
The court fee for an application for declaration of enforceability of an arbitration award or a settlement made before a court is PLN300.
The costs of the execution procedure is the same as for domestic and foreign judgments.
Last but not least, it is advisable to check if any of special regulations related to preventing and combating COVID-19 change the time limits (time limits that had already started to run were suspended for the duration of the epidemic and the new time limits that had not yet commenced were suspended until after the state of the epidemic was over).
The grounds for refusing enforcement of domestic awards are specified in Article 1214 of the PCCP.
The court can refuse to recognise or confirm the enforcement of an arbitration award or a settlement reached if:
With regard to domestic arbitral awards, an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the recognition or statement of enforceability of an arbitration court's judgment issued in the Republic of Poland, or a settlement reached before that arbitration court, may be filed with another panel of the Court of Appeal (Article 1214, Section 4 of the PCCP).
Regarding foreign arbitral awards, an appeal in cassation may be filed against a final court decision concerning the recognition or statement of enforceability of a judgment of an arbitration court issued abroad or a settlement reached before an arbitration court abroad. Moreover, a resumption of proceedings which concluded with a final decision concerning the recognition or statement of enforceability may be requested, and a plea of illegality of the final decision issued in this respect may be filed.
As a rule, the enforcing court is not allowed to review the domestic and foreign award as to its substance. However, in some cases, the prerequisite public policy clause can be used to challenge the award, even if it complies with all the necessary formalities and requirements. The court can refuse to recognise or confirm the arbitration award, or the settlement reached, on the grounds of the public policy clause.
The grounds for refusing enforcement of international awards are specified in Article 5 of New York Convention. Recognition and enforcement of the award can be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought proof that:
The recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award can also be refused if the competent authority in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that the:
If no international agreement applies (including the New York Convention), then Article 1215 of the PCCP applies. The grounds in Article 1215 of the PCCP are very similar to the grounds stated in the New York Convention. First, the grounds stated in the Article 1214, Section 3 apply. Irrespective of these grounds, the court, at the request of a party, can refuse to recognise or confirm enforcement of a judgment of an arbitration court issued abroad or a settlement reached before an arbitration court abroad if the party proves that:
Al. Stanów Zjednoczonych 61
+48 22 516 2600
+48 22 516 firstname.lastname@example.org