How Poland's 1 March 2026 CCP Reforms Change Dispute Strategy, Converting Litigation to Arbitration and Court Referrals to Mediation

Since 1 March 2026, parties to pending court proceedings in Poland can convert litigation to arbitration by mutual consent, thanks to the newly introduced art. 11611 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). Enacted through the Act of 5 August 2025 amending the CCP (published in Dziennik Ustaw as Dz. U. 2025. 1228), the 2026 civil procedure reforms in Poland also expand the courts’ power to refer disputes to mediation and introduce electronic filing obligations through the Portal Informacyjny Sądów Powszechnych. These changes reshape the tactical calculus for in-house counsel, construction developers, sports clubs and agents, and private clients who find themselves mid-litigation and weighing whether a faster, more confidential forum would better serve their interests.

This guide provides a step-by-step, practitioner-oriented walkthrough of the new rules, with checklists, sample wording, sector-specific tips and a decision matrix to help practitioners act immediately.

What Changed on 1 March 2026, Statutory Summary

The Act of 5 August 2025 introduced a package of amendments to the Polish CCP that entered into force on 1 March 2026, fundamentally altering the procedural landscape for dispute resolution. The key changes are grouped below.

The legislative text of the amending Act is available in its official form through the ISAP/Sejm database (Dz.U.2025.1228), and the consolidated CCP text reflecting these amendments is published as Dz.U.2026.468. Practitioners should consult both sources for exact wording, since the consolidated text incorporates all transitional provisions.

Can Pending Litigation Be Converted into Arbitration? Art. 1161¹ Explained

Yes, with conditions. Art. 1161¹ of the CCP, effective 1 March 2026, permits parties to a pending civil court proceeding to jointly agree to refer their dispute to an arbitral tribunal. Before this amendment, the only route to arbitration was to invoke an existing arbitration agreement at the outset of proceedings (or before filing suit). The new provision closes a long-standing procedural gap by creating a mechanism for mid-litigation arbitration conversion in Poland.

Statutory requirements for conversion

The conversion mechanism under art. 1161¹ has several requirements that must all be satisfied:

• Mutual consent. All parties to the proceedings must agree. A unilateral application by one side is insufficient. The consent must be expressed in writing or recorded in the court’s minutes.
• Written arbitration agreement. The parties must conclude (or already hold) an arbitration agreement meeting the formal requirements of art. 1162 CCP, that is, a written agreement to submit the dispute to arbitration, identifying the subject matter or the legal relationship from which the dispute arises.
• Submission to the court. The parties must file a joint application or statement with the court hearing the case, notifying it of the concluded arbitration agreement and requesting discontinuation of the court proceedings.
• No prohibition on arbitration. The subject matter of the dispute must be arbitrable under Polish law (art. 1157 CCP). Disputes that cannot be settled by agreement of the parties, such as certain employment or family matters, remain outside the scope of arbitration conversion.

Legal effects on proceedings and enforcement

Once the court accepts the parties’ joint submission, the practical effects follow a clear sequence. The court issues a decision discontinuing the proceedings (umorzenie postępowania). Any judgment or order that has not become final and binding ceases to have effect. Importantly, the discontinuation does not constitute a decision on the merits, the parties’ substantive claims are preserved and transferred to the chosen arbitral forum.

Industry observers expect this mechanism to be used most frequently in complex commercial disputes where parties initially filed in court for tactical reasons (such as securing an injunction) and later recognised that the speed, confidentiality or specialist expertise of arbitration would better suit the case. The likely practical effect is a reduction in court docket time for cases where both sides genuinely prefer arbitration but lacked a pre-existing arbitration clause.

For enforcement purposes, any future arbitral award rendered after conversion will be enforceable under the standard regime for domestic or international arbitral awards (Part V CCP, arts. 1212–1217), and recognition under the New York Convention applies for cross-border enforcement.

Step-by-Step Checklist, Converting Pending Litigation to Arbitration

The following checklist provides a practical timeline for counsel seeking to convert litigation to arbitration in Poland under art. 1161¹. The arbitration conversion process can be broken into six sequential stages.

1. Confirm the arbitration basis (Day 0). Review whether the underlying contract already contains an arbitration clause. If it does, assess whether that clause covers the specific dispute at issue. If no clause exists, draft a new arbitration agreement that satisfies art. 1162 CCP, it must be in writing, identify the legal relationship, and specify the subject matter of the dispute. Consider whether a broad or narrow scope is appropriate.
2. Obtain opposing-party consent (Days 1–14). Approach the opposing party (or parties) through counsel. Document the consent exchange in writing, email correspondence confirmed by signed letters is the recommended minimum. Where multiple defendants or third parties are involved, ensure every party to the court proceedings consents. A single holdout defeats conversion.
3. Select the tribunal, seat and rules (Days 7–21). Agree on the arbitral institution and rules, or opt for ad hoc arbitration. Common institutional choices include the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy KIG, also known as SAKIG), the ICC International Court of Arbitration, or the Lewiatan Court of Arbitration. Specify the seat of arbitration (typically Warsaw for domestic disputes), the language, and the number of arbitrators.
4. Prepare and file the court submission (Days 14–30). Draft the joint application to the court under art. 1161¹, attaching the signed arbitration agreement and requesting discontinuation. The filing should clearly reference art. 1161¹ CCP, identify all parties consenting, attach evidence of consent, and request the court to discontinue proceedings. File electronically via the Portal Informacyjny Sądów Powszechnych where mandatory electronic filing applies.
5. Address interim measures and injunctions (Days 14–30, in parallel). Before filing the court submission, assess any existing injunctive relief or protective measures. Document in the arbitration agreement or a side letter how the parties intend to handle these measures post-conversion (see the interim relief section below).
6. Commence arbitration and plan enforcement (Days 30–90). Once the court issues its discontinuation decision, file the request for arbitration with the chosen institution (or notify the other party of arbitrator appointment in ad hoc proceedings). Preserve all evidence gathered during the court proceedings, as it may be admissible before the tribunal subject to the applicable arbitration rules.

Drafting tips for counsel

Precision in the joint submission is critical. The court will examine whether the requirements of art. 1161¹ are met before issuing the discontinuation decision. Counsel should ensure the arbitration agreement uses language that unambiguously covers the specific claims pending before the court, generic references to “all disputes arising from the contract” may be challenged if the litigation includes tort claims or third-party issues not originally contemplated. Include a recital acknowledging the pending court proceedings by case number and confirm that all parties waive any objection to discontinuation.

Which arbitration institutions and tribunals to consider in Poland

Poland offers several well-established arbitral institutions. The Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (SAKIG/KIG) is the oldest and largest domestic institution, administering cases under its own rules with a panel of experienced arbitrators. The Lewiatan Court of Arbitration, affiliated with the Polish Confederation Lewiatan, is popular for commercial disputes. For international disputes or those involving substantial sums, parties frequently choose the ICC or the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC). Ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules remains an option, though it requires the parties to manage tribunal constitution and procedural scheduling themselves. For a broader comparison of arbitration-friendly jurisdictions, see our guide to top countries for international arbitration and dispute resolution.

High-level arbitration steps and how conversion alters timing

A standard arbitration typically proceeds through: (1) request for arbitration, (2) constitution of the tribunal, (3) terms of reference or procedural order, (4) written submissions (statement of claim and defence), (5) document production, (6) hearing, and (7) award. When a case arrives via conversion from litigation, stages (1) through (3) begin from scratch, but the parties often benefit from discovery and evidence already gathered during court proceedings. Early indications suggest that converted cases may reach the hearing stage faster than freshly initiated arbitrations, because factual and legal positions are already crystallised through prior court pleadings.

Interim Relief, Injunctions and Protective Measures, Practical Impact

One of the most pressing questions for parties considering arbitration conversion in Poland is what happens to existing court-issued injunctions and protective measures. The 2026 civil procedure reforms do not create an automatic carve-out preserving court-ordered interim relief once proceedings are discontinued under art. 1161¹.

Under general CCP rules, interim measures granted by a court are linked to the court proceedings in which they were issued. When those proceedings are discontinued, the legal basis for the interim measures may fall away, unless the parties take affirmative steps. The recommended practice is threefold:

• Document the agreement on interim measures. Before filing the joint conversion application, include an express provision in the arbitration agreement (or a side letter) confirming that existing court-ordered measures shall remain in force pending the tribunal’s first procedural order.
• Request the tribunal to issue interim measures promptly. Many institutional rules (including SAKIG’s and the ICC’s) allow the tribunal, or an emergency arbitrator, to issue interim or conservatory measures. File a request for interim relief simultaneously with the request for arbitration.
• Consider a parallel court application. If there is any risk that existing measures will lapse, file a separate application with the court under art. 730 et seq. CCP for interim measures in support of arbitration proceedings (arts. 1166–1167 CCP), which remain available even after litigation is discontinued.

The likely practical effect will be that well-advised parties address interim relief continuity before triggering the conversion, eliminating any gap in protection. Failing to plan for this transition is among the highest-risk oversights in the new conversion workflow.

Court Referral to Mediation, When Courts May Refer and Is It Compulsory?

The 1 March 2026 amendments also strengthened the court referral to mediation framework in Poland. Under the amended mediation provisions of the CCP, courts have expanded authority to refer parties to mediation at any stage of proceedings, and in certain categories of disputes, the referral mechanism carries stronger procedural incentives.

The key distinction is between discretionary referral and what practitioners increasingly describe as quasi-mandatory referral. Under the amended rules, courts may refer parties to mediation of their own motion or at a party’s request, and the proceedings are suspended during the mediation period. In designated case types, particularly commercial disputes below certain value thresholds and certain construction and lease disputes, courts are expected to refer parties to mediation before scheduling the first hearing, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying a refusal.

Mediation referral in Poland remains technically non-compulsory in the sense that parties cannot be forced to reach an agreement. However, the practical consequence of a refusal to participate in court-referred mediation may include adverse cost consequences, since the court may take the refusal into account when allocating litigation costs. This mechanism creates a strong incentive to engage with the mediation process in good faith.

For counsel, the practical checklist for responding to a court referral to mediation includes: (a) assess whether mediation could genuinely resolve the dispute or narrow the issues; (b) propose a qualified mediator from the court’s list or agree on a private mediator; (c) prepare a concise mediation brief; and (d) document any settlement reached in a form that can be approved by the court, giving it the force of a court settlement (ugoda sądowa).

Electronic Filing and Portal Practicalities

The 2026 civil procedure reforms introduced mandatory electronic court filings in Poland for specified procedural submissions through the Portal Informacyjny Sądów Powszechnych. From 1 March 2026, designated filings, including certain applications, briefs and procedural motions, must be submitted electronically. Electronic service of court documents becomes the default channel in proceedings where e-filing is mandatory.

For parties seeking to convert litigation to arbitration, this has concrete implications. The joint submission under art. 1161¹ must comply with the applicable filing format: where electronic filing is mandatory for the relevant court, the application and supporting arbitration agreement must be uploaded through the portal. Counsel should ensure that:

• Digital signatures are valid. The arbitration agreement and consent documents must carry qualified electronic signatures or trusted signatures (podpis zaufany) where the portal requires authenticated filings.
• Attachments meet format requirements. Upload the signed arbitration agreement as a PDF with embedded signatures, and retain confirmation of successful filing.
• Proof of service is documented. Where opposing counsel is served electronically, the portal generates delivery confirmations that serve as proof of service, important for establishing the date from which discontinuation takes effect.

Sector Focus, Construction Disputes

Construction dispute arbitration in Poland has long been the preferred route for complex, multi-party infrastructure and development projects. The ability to convert litigation to arbitration under art. 1161¹ is particularly relevant for the construction sector, where disputes frequently begin with emergency court filings (injunctions against calling bank guarantees, applications to secure evidence) and evolve into prolonged proceedings where arbitration’s speed and technical expertise would be more suitable.

Practical tips for construction practitioners:

• Review FIDIC and bespoke contract clauses. Many construction contracts based on FIDIC templates already contain tiered dispute resolution clauses (engineer’s decision → DAB/DAAB → arbitration). Where litigation was commenced in breach of such a clause, conversion under art. 1161¹ offers a procedurally clean way to redirect the dispute to the contractually agreed forum.
• Preserve technical evidence early. Before conversion, ensure that all expert reports, site inspection records and technical documentation filed with the court are preserved and can be re-submitted to the tribunal.
• Secure performance guarantees and bank guarantees. Confirm that any court orders restraining the calling of guarantees are preserved through transitional interim measures (see interim relief section above).
• Consider emergency arbitrator procedures. If injunctive relief is needed urgently post-conversion, SAKIG’s and the ICC’s rules provide emergency arbitrator mechanisms that can issue orders within days.
• Update standard contract templates. Going forward, include a clause expressly permitting mid-litigation conversion to arbitration by mutual agreement, referencing art. 1161¹ CCP, to streamline the process in future disputes.

Sector Focus, Sports Disputes

Sports dispute arbitration in Poland involves a distinctive mix of contractual claims (player transfers, sponsorship agreements, image rights) and disciplinary proceedings (doping, match-fixing, eligibility). The 2026 CCP amendments offer new tactical options for sports clubs, agents and athletes whose disputes have ended up before the ordinary courts, whether by choice or by accident.

Key considerations for the sports sector:

• Disciplinary vs contractual disputes. Disciplinary matters governed by federation statutes are typically subject to internal arbitration (e.g., the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Polish Olympic Committee, or CAS in Lausanne). Art. 1161¹ is most useful for purely contractual disputes that were filed in court but would be more efficiently resolved through sports-specific arbitration.
• Provisional measures for player eligibility. Where a player’s registration or eligibility is at stake, interim relief is critical. Use the conversion mechanism alongside an emergency arbitrator application to maintain provisional registration pending the award.
• Recognition and enforcement of awards. Awards from recognised sports arbitration bodies are enforceable under the CCP’s arbitration provisions and, where applicable, the New York Convention. Ensure the arbitration agreement specifies an institution and seat that maximise enforceability.
• Recommended clause language. Include in player contracts and agency agreements a clause permitting either party to request conversion of pending litigation to arbitration by mutual consent, with a default institution (e.g., SAKIG or CAS) and a 14-day response window.

How to Advise Clients, Decision Matrix

The 2026 reforms make the choice between litigation, arbitration and mediation more dynamic than ever. The following comparison table summarises the key features that practitioners should walk clients through when deciding how to convert litigation to arbitration in Poland, or whether to pursue mediation instead.

The decision flowchart is straightforward: if both parties prefer speed, confidentiality and specialist adjudication, and the dispute is arbitrable, conversion under art. 1161¹ is the optimal path. If the dispute is amenable to a negotiated solution, accept or request a court referral to mediation first. If one party refuses consent to arbitration and mediation fails, litigation continues under the standard CCP framework. Practitioners can consult the Global Law Experts lawyer directory to identify qualified dispute resolution practitioners in Poland.

Practical Annex, Sample Checklist and Template Wording

The following sample text blocks are provided for illustrative purposes. They should be adapted to the specific facts, jurisdiction and applicable arbitration rules in each case.

(a) Party consent to refer the dispute to arbitration

“The undersigned parties to proceedings before the [name] District Court, case no. [X], hereby agree to submit all claims and counterclaims in these proceedings to arbitration in accordance with the rules of [SAKIG/ICC/other], and request the court to discontinue proceedings pursuant to art. 1161¹ CCP.”

(b) Proposed tribunal appointment language

“The dispute shall be resolved by a sole arbitrator / a tribunal of three arbitrators appointed in accordance with the [SAKIG/ICC] Rules. The seat of arbitration shall be Warsaw, Poland. The language of the proceedings shall be [Polish/English].”

(c) Joint application to the court under art. 1161¹

“To the [name] District Court, [division]. The parties jointly submit, pursuant to art. 1161¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure, that they have concluded an arbitration agreement covering the subject matter of these proceedings (attached hereto) and respectfully request the court to discontinue the proceedings. All parties consent to discontinuation and waive any objection thereto.”

Conclusion

The 2026 civil procedure reforms in Poland represent the most significant procedural shift in Polish dispute resolution in over a decade. The ability to convert litigation to arbitration in Poland under art. 11611 CCP, combined with strengthened court referral to mediation and mandatory electronic filing, gives parties and their counsel genuine mid-stream flexibility to choose the forum that best fits their dispute. Construction developers can redirect complex technical disputes to arbitrators with engineering expertise; sports clubs can move contractual claims to specialist sports tribunals; and all commercial parties gain a structured, cost-effective path away from congested court dockets.

The key to capturing these benefits is early planning: secure opposing-party consent, address interim relief before conversion, and select the right institution and rules from the outset. As case law and institutional practice develop around the new provisions, this guide will be updated accordingly.

Last reviewed: 16 May 2026. This article will be updated as new case law or regulatory guidance on the 2026 CCP amendments is published.

Sources

1. Dziennik Ustaw, Consolidated Civil Procedure Code (Dz.U.2026.468)
2. ISAP / Sejm, Act of 5 August 2025 amending the CCP (Dz.U.2025.1228)
3. Co do zasady / In Principle, Conversion of State Court Proceedings into Arbitration Proceedings
4. Global Arbitration Review, Poland: Transforming Arbitration Legislative Reforms
5. Schoenherr, Easier Way to Switch from Litigation to Arbitration in Poland
6. CMS Expert Guide to International Arbitration, Poland
7. Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (KIG/SAKIG), FAQ
8. WIPO Lex, Polish Code of Civil Procedure