🇵🇱 Poland

1. The status of digitalisation in enforcement of the judgments under the regulation in

question (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

(a) Under EOP Regulation Digitalization of Enforcement Procedures in Poland Poland has been advancing the digitalization of enforcement procedures under the European Order for Payment (EOP) Regulation and the European Enforcement Order (EEO) Regulation, though implementation varies across courts and regions. 2. European Order for Payment (EOP) Regulation The EOP provides a simplified procedure for cross- border pecuniary claims that are uncontested. In Poland, digital integration includes: * Electronic Submission - Claimants can file applications online using standardized forms via the European e- Justice Portal, reducing paperwork. * Electronic Communication - Polish courts increasingly use electronic means for notifications and document service, provided parties consent and have the required technical capabilities. * Digital Platforms - While no dedicated EOP platform exists in Poland, general e-filing systems used by Polish courts support electronic case handling. The European e- Justice Portal also provides access to necessary forms and guidance. * 3. Broader Digitalization Efforts in Poland Poland has made significant strides in digitalizing its judicial and enforcement systems: * mObywatel App - A government platform allowing citizens to access digital IDs, driving licenses, and other official documents electronically. * National Court Register (KRS) - Fully digital since July 2021, enabling online submission and access to all business and legal filings. * Judicial Digitalization - Courts are integrating more electronic case management tools to enhance transparency and efficiency.

(b) under EEO Regulation In Poland, the digitalisation of enforcement-related communication under the European Enforcement Order (EEO) Regulation is fragmented and asymmetrical, characterised by the coexistence of multiple legal regimes rather than a single, unified digital enforcement system. Polish civil procedure currently recognises several forms of electronic communication with courts, but their scope, addressees and level of implementation vary significantly. Electronic service is mandatory for certain professional actors, notably lawyers and public bodies, who receive court correspondence through the Information Portal (Portal Informacyjny), although submissions to courts often still require paper form. Fully digital procedures exist only in specific areas, such as company registration before the National Court Register and bankruptcy proceedings, which are conducted entirely via dedicated ICT platforms. Additionally, an optional electronic writ of payment procedure operates through a specialised portal and is limited to one court. By contrast, general electronic delivery provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure have remained largely inoperative due to the absence of a comprehensive technical infrastructure. More substantial reform has been introduced through the Electronic Delivery Act of 2020, which aims to establish mandatory electronic communication for public authorities and professional legal representatives. However, its full implementation-covering courts and enforcement agents-is postponed until

2029. Until then, courts generally issue and serve EEO certificates and related documents in paper

form. In enforcement proceedings, a limited form of digitalisation already exists: enforcement agents are required to communicate electronically with administrative enforcement bodies and tax authorities, and they use a hybrid service whereby documents are generated electronically but delivered to recipients in paper form by the public postal operator. Overall, while Poland has laid down an extensive legal framework for electronic communication, EEO enforcement remains predominantly paper-based, with meaningful digitalisation expected only in the medium term following the full entry into force of the electronic delivery system.

Procedural aspects

2. Competent court or authority and procedure involved in the enforcement (a) under EOP

Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

a) Under European Payment Order (EPO) Under National Law Competent Courts in Poland - The application should be submitted to: The district court with general jurisdiction over the debtor's residence or assets, or If jurisdiction cannot be determined, the district court where enforcement is to take place. More specifically, District courts (sady rejonowe) - have jurisdiction over claims up to 100,000 PLN. Regional courts (sady okregowe) - handle claims exceeding 100,000 PLN.

(b) Competent authorities in Poland under EEO Regulation In terms of the enforcement of enforcement titles specified in Regulation 805/2004 - as already mentioned in the section above - an automatic enforceability model has been adopted. This model bypasses the intermediate stage between the proceedings regarding the subject matter of the case (in the Member State of origin) and the enforcement procedure (in the Member State of enforcement). This means that, since 2015, if enforcement is to be carried out in Poland based on an enforcement title specified in Regulation 805/2004, the case will not be handled by the Polish court at all. Instead, the case will immediately be handed over to an enforcement agent, who in Poland is called "komornik sadowy". In the context of granting an EEO certificate to Polish enforcement titles, the competent authorities are described in Article 795(1) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. According to this provision, if an enforcement title in the form of a court judgment or a settlement made before or approved by a court meets the conditions set out in Regulation 805/2004, the court that issued the judgment, or before which the settlement was made or approved, will issue a certificate at the request of the creditor. Therefore, in principle, the EEO certificate is issued by the court that issued the enforcement title. If the enforcement title does not come from a court (e.g. authentic instrument), Article 795(1) paragraph 2 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure applies, stating that in such cases, the district court in the area where the title was issued will decide on the request for the EEO certificate. According to Article 795(2) of the Polish Code of Civil procedure, the decision regarding the issuance of the European Enforcement Order certificate is made by a single judge. The granting of an EEO certificate to an enforcement title takes place through a court decree (postanowienie). The court issues the certificate using the standard form specified in Annex I to the Regulation. None of the provisions of Polish law contain regulations specifying how the EEO certificate should be granted to an enforcement title from a technical standpoint. In practice, when issuing an EEO certificate, the court should issue a decree regarding the issuance of the EEO certificate and then permanently attach it to the enforcement title, along with the certificate referred to in Annex I of the Regulation 5 . The EEO certificate is issued in the same language as the enforcement title (Article 9(2) of Regulation No. 805/2004), meaning that in Poland, it is issued solely in Polish (Polish is the only language that can be used by courts in Poland). The fee for the request to issue an EEO certificate is 50 PLN (just under 12 EUR)

3. rules on service

a) Under EOP Regulation

In Poland, the service of court documents is governed by national procedural law and applicable international instruments, ensuring that parties are properly notified of judicial proceedings. Domestic service is primarily regulated by Article 143 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postepowania cywilnego, KPC) and is carried out ex officio by the courts. The most common method of domestic service is postal delivery through the national postal operator, Poczta Polska, usually by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. If the addressee is absent, the document may be deposited at the post office and a notification (awizo) is left. Failure to collect the document within fourteen days results in presumed delivery (fikcja doreczenia), whereby service is deemed legally effective. In specific cases, documents may also be served directly by court bailiffs (komornik sadowy), particularly where service is being avoided or enforcement measures are involved, with costs generally borne by the requesting party. Some courts may use their own officials for service, and electronic service is available in limited categories of proceedings, notably commercial and administrative cases. Where a party's address is unknown, the court may order alternative service, including public notice or the appointment of a guardian for service. In cross-border cases, Poland applies the Hague Service Convention. The Ministry of Justice acts as the designated Central Authority, transmitting requests for service to the competent local courts. Poland has objected to alternative service methods under Articles 10(a)-(c) of the Convention, meaning that service is generally carried out exclusively through the Central Authority. As a rule, documents must be translated into Polish; if no translation is provided, service will only be effected if the recipient voluntarily accepts the document. Proof of service is issued once delivery is completed, typically in the form of an acknowledgement of receipt or an official certificate. Domestic service is generally swift, while international service under the Hague Convention may take several months. The costs of service depend on the method used and are usually borne by the requesting party. Documents served in Poland do not require legalisation or an apostille under the 1961 Hague Convention.

b) Under EEO Regulation

Polish civil procedure largely complies with the minimum service standards set out in Articles 13- 14 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004. Service of judicial documents is carried out ex officio by courts and remains predominantly paper-based, mainly through registered post with acknowledgement of receipt, enforcement agents, or court serving agencies. Personal service is the rule for natural persons and authorised representatives of legal persons, while substituted service and constructive service mechanisms apply where personal delivery is unsuccessful. Polish law provides detailed rules on place, time, and recipients of service, including substituted service, deposit with notice, and deemed service in cases of refusal or failure to update address details. Special regimes exist for certain categories of persons (e.g. detainees, military personnel). Attorneys may serve documents directly on one another, subject to proof of delivery, and courts may appoint a guardian ad litem for service when a party's whereabouts are unknown. Electronic service remains limited and fragmented. While courts serve documents electronically on professional legal representatives via the Information Portal, filings and service on parties are still largely physical. A systemic transition to default electronic service is planned for 2029 under the Electronic Service Act. With regard to European Enforcement Orders, specific safeguards apply where enforcement titles exist only in electronic form, including service of a court-certified extract. Decisions refusing to issue an EEO certificate are served solely on the creditor and may be appealed, without notification to the debtor.

4. Language of the certificate and documents to be appended

a) Under EPO Regulation

In Poland, language requirements for enforcement under the European Order for Payment (EOP) Regulation are governed by Article 21 of the EOP Regulation in conjunction with national procedural law. Polish is the sole official language of the courts and enforcement authorities, and both EOP certificates and court decisions must be issued in Polish. Accordingly, standard forms, including the EOP certificate (Form E), must be completed in Polish when submitted to Polish authorities. Where enforcement is sought in Poland on the basis of an EOP issued in another EU language, a Polish translation is required. This obligation applies to the EOP decision itself, the standard certificate, and any supporting documents relevant to enforcement. While Polish law provides limited flexibility, and courts may exceptionally accept documents in English or German, particularly in commercial disputes, such acceptance is not guaranteed and must be expressly allowed. Failure to provide the required translations may result in refusal or suspension of enforcement proceedings. In such cases, the requesting party is required to submit certified Polish translations before proceedings can continue, and service of untranslated documents may expose the enforcement to procedural challenges by the recipient.

b) Under EEO Regulation

Enforcement titles issued by Polish courts are always drafted in Polish, which is the sole judicial language in Poland; consequently, both the enforcement title and the EEO certificate issued domestically are in Polish.

Where a creditor seeks enforcement in Poland on the basis of an EEO certificate issued in another Member State, the creditor must submit a request for enforcement in Polish to the competent enforcement authority (enforcement agent or district court). The request must be accompanied by the enforcement title and a copy of the EEO certificate satisfying authenticity requirements, as well as a translation or transcription into Polish if necessary.

The requirement for translation or transcription is discretionary. Enforcement authorities may waive it if they can adequately understand the certificate in its original language, which is facilitated by the use of standard EU forms allowing comparison with Polish-language versions. However, where doubts arise-particularly if the certificate contains additional annotations-a translation must be requested. A transcription may be required where the certificate is not issued in the Latin alphabet (e.g. documents from Greece, Cyprus, or Bulgaria).

When requesting a translation or transcription, the enforcement authority must set an appropriate deadline and inform the creditor that failure to comply will constitute a formal defect, resulting in the return of the enforcement request pursuant to Article 130 §2 in conjunction with Article 13 §2 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure.

5. enforcement fees

a) Under EPO Regulation the enforcement of a European Order for Payment (EOP) is subject to court and enforcement fees governed by national law. Filing an application for an EOP before Polish courts requires payment of a court fee amounting to 5% of the value of the claim, with a statutory minimum of 30 PLN, as provided by the Act on Court Costs in Civil Cases. Court fees may be paid by bank transfer, at the court cashier, or by other authorised methods. Enforcement itself is carried out by court bailiffs (komornicy sadowi), whose fees generally amount to 15% of the enforced sum, subject to statutory caps and limitations. Bailiffs may request advance payments to cover enforcement-related expenses. As a rule, enforcement costs are ultimately borne by the debtor and may be recovered as part of the enforcement proceedings. The legal framework governing enforcement fees and procedures includes the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, which contains specific provisions on European Orders for Payment, the Act on Court Bailiffs and Enforcement regulating bailiff powers and fees, and the Act on Court Costs in Civil Cases. Conflict-of-law aspects relating to foreign enforcement titles are addressed by the Act on International Private Law. Court settlements and other authentic instruments approved or concluded by a court are enforceable in Poland under the EOP Regulation in the same manner as court judgments, and the same procedural rules apply. An enforceable EOP issued in another Member State is automatically recognised and enforceable in Poland without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur). Polish enforcement authorities execute such orders as they would domestic enforcement titles. For enforcement, the creditor must submit the EOP together with the enforceability certificate referred to in Article 18 of the EOP Regulation. Although the debtor may request a review under Article 20 of the Regulation, enforcement is not suspended unless the court expressly orders otherwise.

b) Under EEO Regulation

The fee for submitting a request for the issuance of an EEO certificate in Poland amounts to 50 PLN (approximately EUR 12).

Where a creditor seeks to initiate enforcement in Poland on the basis of an enforcement title accompanied by an EEO certificate issued in another Member State, the applicable fees and cost rules are governed by the Act of 28 February 2018 on Debt Enforcement Proceedings Costs. Enforcement is conducted by an enforcement agent, who charges statutory fees for enforcing judgments and performing enforcement-related actions.

Enforcement proceedings are initiated upon a request by the creditor, accompanied by an enforceable title, identifying the debtor and specifying the method of enforcement. As a general rule, for the enforcement of pecuniary claims, the enforcement agent charges the debtor a proportional fee of 10% of the enforced claim. Where enforcement proceedings are discontinued at the creditor's request pursuant to Article 824(1)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the proportional fee is reduced to 5% of the outstanding claim.

Enforcement fees may be paid in cash at the enforcement agent's office or by bank transfer to the enforcement agent's account. Although enforcement costs are ultimately borne by the debtor, the creditor is required to advance certain costs. The enforcement agent may request advance payments before undertaking actions involving expenses and may refuse to act if such advances are not paid within the prescribed time. Any unused portion of the advance must be returned.

If the advance payment proves insufficient during the enforcement process, the enforcement agent temporarily covers the shortfall and subsequently recovers it from the debtor or creditor, as appropriate. Upon completion of enforcement, the enforcement agent determines the total costs. Pursuant to Article 770 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, the debtor must reimburse the creditor for all necessary enforcement costs, which may include legal representation fees, provided they were required for effective enforcement.

However, where the debtor proves insolvent, the creditor bears the risk that advanced enforcement costs may not be recoverable.

6. Refusal, stay, or limitation of the enforcement procedure under the regulation in question in

the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

a) Under EOP Regulation

Under the European Order for Payment (EOP) Regulation, refusal, stay, or limitation of enforcement in Poland is governed by Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 and the corresponding provisions of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. Applications for refusal of enforcement within the meaning of Article 22 must be submitted, pursuant to Article 1153(23)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the regional court of the debtor's domicile or registered office. If no such court exists, jurisdiction lies with the regional court in whose district enforcement is pending or being carried out. The respondent is entitled to present their position within a time limit set by the court.

A Polish court may refuse enforcement of an EOP only in the limited circumstances expressly provided for by the Regulation, namely where the EOP is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in Poland or in another Member State involving the same parties and the same cause of action. Substantive review of the claim is excluded, and the debtor may challenge enforcement solely on procedural grounds, such as improper service or defects in the issuance of the EOP.

As regards stay or limitation of enforcement, Article 23 of the EOP Regulation allows the debtor to apply to the competent district court for protective measures. In accordance with Article 1153(20)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may stay enforcement proceedings, limit enforcement to protective measures, or make enforcement conditional upon the creditor providing appropriate security. Enforcement is therefore not automatically suspended by the debtor's application and remains subject to judicial discretion.

b) Under EEO Regulation

Refusal of enforcement

The refusal of enforcement of a European Enforcement Order (EEO) is regulated at national level. In Poland, it is governed by Article 1153(23) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. A motion to refuse enforcement may be submitted exclusively by the debtor, either before enforcement begins or during its course, as no statutory deadline applies.

The motion must be filed with the regional court (sad okregowy) competent for the debtor's place of residence or registered office, or, failing that, the court where enforcement is or will be carried out. The court examines the motion in a non-public session. Appeals (zazalenie) against decisions on refusal are exceptionally available, and further remedies include a cassation complaint, a motion to reopen proceedings, and a request for a declaration of unlawfulness of a final decision. Formal requirements are governed by the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, as neither EU law nor national law sets specific rules.

Revocation of an EEO certificate

A debtor cannot appeal the issuance of an EEO certificate but may request its revocation (referred to as "withdrawal" in Regulation 805/2004). The revocation procedure is governed by Article 10(2) of Regulation 805/2004 and, at national level, by Article 795(4) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure.

The motion must be filed within one month from service of the decree granting the EEO certificate. It is examined in a non-public session, but the court must hear the creditor, either orally or in writing. The court issues a decree that must be served ex officio on both parties. Decisions on revocation are subject to appeal (zazalenie) by both creditor and debtor, but cassation is excluded. The court fee for filing a revocation motion is PLN 50.

Loss or limitation of enforceability

Polish law also provides a procedure for obtaining a certificate of loss or limitation of enforceability of an enforceable title certified as an EEO, pursuant to Article 795(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such motions may be filed by both creditors and debtors.

Jurisdiction lies with the court that issued the original judgment; where the enforceable title is not a court judgment, jurisdiction lies with the district court (sad rejonowy) where the title was created. Certificates are issued using the standard EU templates, and the procedure largely mirrors that for EEO certification.

Decisions are taken by a single judge, usually in a non-public session, and must be served ex officio on both parties. All decisions-granting, rejecting, or dismissing the motion-are subject to appeal (zazalenie). The court fee for requesting a certificate of loss or limitation of enforceability is PLN 50.

7. Availability of any legal aid for guidance on the enforcement procedures under the

regulation in question in the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

a) Under EOP Regulation

In Poland, guidance on enforcing a European Order for Payment (EOP) can be found through several resources:

1. European e-Justice Portal: This portal provides comprehensive information on the EOP

procedure, including standard forms and procedural details.

2. Polish Service for Businesses: https://www.biznes.gov.pl/pl/portal/ou695

3. Polish Ministry of Justice: The Ministry's official website offers information on the EOP

procedure as implemented in Poland. https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/informacja-o- formularzach-stosowanych-w-postepowaniu-w-sprawie-europejskiego-nakazu-zaplaty

b) Under EEO Regulation

There are no specific rules on legal aid concerning EEO. However, - according to doctrine - it is possible to request for an attorney-in-law ex officio in enforcement proceedings (Article 117 § 2 in conjunction with Article 13 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure). She or he provides legal aid under the enforcement proceedings. Pursuant to Article 117 § 1 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, a party who has been exempt by the court from paying all or part of court costs may move the court for an advocate or an attorney-at-law to be appointed. In accordance with Article 13 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as otherwise provided by specific regulations, provisions concerning contentious proceedings apply mutatis mutandis to other types of proceedings governed by this Code. At the same time, exemption from court costs awarded to a party by the court in proceedings to examine the case or to which a party is entitled in accordance with applicable law also extends to enforcement proceedings.

8. Critical assessment of the enforcement procedures under the regulation in question in the

intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

a) Under EOP Regulation

Polish judicial practice in European Order for Payment (EOP) proceedings reveals significant inconsistencies in the application of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 and national procedural law, undermining the efficiency and uniformity of the procedure. The EOP is predominantly used by Polish claimants in cross-border cases against foreign defendants, which makes correct handling of cross-border service particularly crucial. Systemic shortcomings emerge in corrective procedures, as courts often fail to properly address formal defects using the standard forms ??????????ed by the Regulation, notably Forms B and C. Instead, courts frequently rely on national procedural mechanisms, leading to incorrectly formulated payment orders. Similar deficiencies arise in the treatment of interest claims, which are not always specified with sufficient precision. Courts also tend to request additional factual details or documents even when applications fully comply with Form A, contrary to the fast-track logic of the EOP procedure. Further procedural errors concern language requirements, as courts sometimes demand translations prematurely, in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007. Additional problems include delays in issuing payment orders beyond the 30-day deadline, unclear specification of interest in payment orders, incorrect handling of court costs and fee refunds, and persistent deficiencies in service of documents and enforceability certification. In particular, courts often fail to issue enforceability certificates ex officio and do not consistently ensure compliance with cross-border service standards, delaying effective enforcement.

b) Under EEO Regulation

The attractiveness of the European Enforcement Order (EEO) has significantly diminished since the entry into force of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which abolished the exequatur procedure and thereby has an identical scope of application.