Our Expert in Poland
Freezing assets can be critical where a creditor faces a real risk that a debtor will dispose of property before a judgment can be enforced. This is particularly relevant in cross-border fraud, shareholder disputes, major contractual claims and asset-recovery cases, where money, shares or other assets can be transferred quickly.
Polish law does not, however, recognise a standalone “freezing order” equivalent to the freezing injunction known in common-law jurisdictions. The expression “freezing order” is therefore used in this guide as a functional description for international readers. Under Polish law, asset preservation is achieved through interim security measures — zabezpieczenie roszczenia — governed primarily by the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, “CPC”).
This guide explains when Polish courts may grant interim security, how monetary and non-monetary claims can be protected, how urgent applications are dealt with, how the measures are implemented and challenged, and how EU instruments such as the European Account Preservation Order may assist in cross-border cases.
It is intended primarily for private clients, creditors, businesses and in-house counsel facing a need to preserve assets located in Poland.
For Polish-law purposes, the closest equivalent to a freezing order is an order granting security for a claim (postanowienie o udzieleniu zabezpieczenia). Security may be sought before substantive proceedings are commenced or while those proceedings are pending.
Its purpose is protective rather than final. As a general rule, an interim measure should preserve the practical ability to enforce a later judgment or otherwise ensure that the purpose of the proceedings can still be achieved.
Under Article 731 CPC, security should not normally lead to satisfaction of the claim itself unless a specific statutory exception applies.
A securing measure therefore differs fundamentally from enforcement following a judgment. It protects the creditor against deterioration of its position while the underlying dispute remains unresolved.
Under Article 730¹ CPC, an applicant will generally need to establish two elements:
a prima facie or sufficiently plausible claim (uprawdopodobnienie roszczenia); and
a legal interest in obtaining security (interes prawny w udzieleniu zabezpieczenia).
The applicant does not have to prove its entire case to the same standard that will ultimately be required for a judgment on the merits. At the security stage, the court makes a preliminary assessment on the material presented.
A legal interest exists, in particular, where the absence of security would make enforcement of the future judgment impossible or seriously hinder it, or would otherwise make it impossible or seriously difficult to achieve the purpose of the proceedings.
Evidence that a debtor is transferring assets, closing accounts, restructuring ownership, selling significant property or otherwise making assets less accessible may therefore be highly relevant.
However, “dissipation risk” is not an independent statutory condition under Polish law. It is one important factual circumstance through which the applicant may demonstrate the statutory requirement of a legal interest.
The court must also respect proportionality. Article 730¹ §3 CPC requires the court to balance the parties’ interests so that the applicant receives appropriate legal protection without imposing a greater burden on the respondent than necessary.
The appropriate method of security depends first on whether the underlying claim is monetary or non-monetary.
That distinction is important because Polish law applies different rules to each category.
For monetary claims, the court does not have unrestricted discretion to devise any form of asset freeze it considers appropriate. Article 747 CPC contains the statutory methods by which monetary claims may be secured.
They include, among others:
attachment of movable property;
attachment of remuneration;
attachment of a receivable from a bank account;
attachment of another receivable or another property right;
establishment of a compulsory mortgage over real estate;
in specified circumstances, a prohibition on disposing of particular real-estate or cooperative rights; and
compulsory administration over an enterprise, agricultural holding or the relevant part of it.
Shares, securities and comparable economic rights may therefore potentially be affected through attachment of the relevant property right, rather than through a free-standing common-law-style prohibition constructed by the applicant.
A court may use more than one permitted form of security if this is justified by the circumstances and remains proportionate.
The position is more flexible for non-monetary claims. Under Article 755 CPC, the court may choose a method it considers appropriate in the circumstances and may also use methods available for monetary claims.
The court may, for example:
regulate the rights and obligations of the parties for the duration of proceedings;
prohibit the disposal of property or rights forming the subject matter of the proceedings;
suspend enforcement or other proceedings aimed at implementing an existing decision; or
order an appropriate entry or warning in a land and mortgage register or another relevant register.
This may be particularly important in disputes involving ownership, corporate rights, unique assets, real estate or preservation of the status quo.
For an international client, a useful practical distinction can be made between measures that attach property and measures that regulate conduct.
That distinction should not, however, be confused with the common-law division between freezing injunctions and other equitable remedies. The available Polish measure must always be identified by reference to the relevant provisions of the CPC and to the nature of the secured claim.
For a monetary claim, attachment of a bank-account receivable or another property right is often the principal tool.
For a non-monetary claim, a prohibition on disposing of a particular asset or an order maintaining a specified legal or factual position may sometimes provide more effective protection.
A significant proportion of interim security is effective because a third party controls or owes the relevant asset.
This may include banks, debtors of the respondent, securities intermediaries or other entities holding property rights that can be attached.
In the case of a bank account, the legal object of attachment is technically the debtor’s receivable against the bank, rather than the physical “freezing” of money as such.
The practical result may nevertheless resemble a bank-account freeze: the amount covered by the attachment is no longer freely available to the debtor.
Precise information about the debtor’s assets and banking relationships is extremely useful, but identifying a particular bank-account number is not invariably a statutory prerequisite to obtaining or implementing security. The application must instead satisfy the formal requirements of the CPC, including identifying the method of security and, for a monetary claim, the amount to be secured.
This distinction can be important in fraud cases where the creditor has identified the relevant bank but does not yet know every account used by the debtor.
A well-prepared application should combine the substantive claim, the statutory basis for security and a practical enforcement strategy.
A typical process involves the following steps:
Identify the underlying claim and the respondent.
Determine whether the claim is monetary or non-monetary.
Identify the assets or rights against which security could effectively operate.
Collect documents supporting the underlying claim.
Demonstrate the legal interest in security, including any evidence showing that future enforcement or achievement of the purpose of the proceedings is at risk.
Select a method of security permitted by the CPC and define its scope.
State the amount to be secured where the underlying claim is monetary.
File the application with the competent Polish court and pay the applicable court fee.
Where relevant, prepare in advance for implementation through a court enforcement officer or another competent authority.
The applicant does not elect between separate “ex parte” and “inter partes” procedures in the same way as under English common law. Whether the respondent is heard or notified before implementation follows from the Polish procedural rules applicable to the particular application and method of security.
Polish civil procedure can nevertheless preserve the element of surprise. A court may decide an application without first hearing the respondent, and Article 740 CPC expressly regulates delayed service in relation to certain securing orders.
Where an order granting security is issued in private and is to be implemented by an enforcement authority, the court generally serves the order initially only on the applicant. The enforcement authority serves it on the respondent when implementation begins.
This can be particularly significant where prior notice could allow assets to be moved before the attachment becomes effective.
This mechanism should not be described as a separate common-law “ex parte freezing injunction”. It is a consequence of the Polish rules governing consideration, service and implementation of an interim-security application.
The application should clearly and accurately present the circumstances necessary for the court to assess the statutory requirements.
The documentary record will often be decisive.
Polish law does not, however, impose a distinct common-law duty of “full and frank disclosure” comparable to the duty associated with certain English without-notice injunctions.
The applicant remains subject to the general duties imposed by Polish civil procedure, including procedural good faith and the obligation to present truthful explanations and relevant evidence. Deliberately misleading the court may have serious procedural consequences, but the Polish system should not be described as applying the English doctrine of “material non-disclosure”.
The court will normally need a coherent factual and documentary basis enabling it to assess both the claim and the need for protection.
Depending on the case, useful material may include:
agreements, invoices and payment records;
correspondence acknowledging the debt or obligation;
corporate documents and shareholder information;
land and mortgage register data;
information concerning receivables owed to the respondent;
banking information lawfully available to the applicant;
evidence of transfers, disposals or restructurings;
financial reports;
asset-tracing results;
evidence concerning attempts to remove assets from Poland or place them beyond effective enforcement.
Evidence of asset dissipation may materially strengthen an application, particularly for a monetary claim, but the evidence should always be tied back to the statutory test: whether the absence of security would make enforcement or achievement of the purpose of the proceedings impossible or seriously more difficult.
The court does not need to be presented with a complete trial record. It does, however, need enough reliable material to conclude that the claim and the legal interest have been sufficiently substantiated at the interim stage.
Speed is one of the principal advantages of security proceedings.
Article 737 CPC provides that an application for security should be determined without delay and, as a rule, no later than one week after it reaches the court, unless a specific provision provides otherwise.
This is a statutory procedural benchmark rather than a guaranteed decision date. The actual time required may depend on the court, the complexity of the application, formal deficiencies and whether a hearing is legally required.
Where the circumstances are genuinely urgent, an application should therefore explain the relevant timing and risks clearly, rather than merely describing the case as urgent.
A creditor does not necessarily have to wait until the statement of claim is filed.
Security may be obtained before the substantive proceedings begin.
Where the court grants security before proceedings on the merits have been commenced, Article 733 §1 CPC requires the court to set a deadline for filing the document initiating the main proceedings. As a rule, this deadline may not exceed two weeks.
If the applicant fails to commence the proceedings within the deadline, the security lapses.
This makes advance preparation important. In a genuinely urgent case, the applicant should ideally prepare the substantive claim in parallel with the interim-security application.
Obtaining an order is only the first stage. The measure must also be implemented correctly.
Where the order is enforceable through enforcement proceedings, Article 743 CPC provides that the rules governing enforcement proceedings apply accordingly. The implementation will typically involve a Polish court enforcement officer (komornik) where the nature of the measure requires it.
Accordingly, an applicant should not assume that it simply “serves the freezing order on the bank” itself. The correct implementation route depends on the measure ordered and the applicable provisions of the CPC.
Preparation should therefore include identifying the enforcement mechanism before the application is filed.
An interim attachment of a bank-account receivable should be distinguished from post-judgment enforcement.
The purpose of the former is primarily protective. The purpose of the latter is satisfaction of an enforceable claim.
An interim attachment does not normally entitle the applicant to receive the attached funds immediately. It preserves the relevant value pending further developments in the substantive proceedings and enforcement process.
A judgment creditor, by contrast, pursues enforcement on the basis of an enforceable title and may ultimately obtain payment from assets subject to execution.
An “enforceable title” should not be treated as synonymous only with a final judgment. Polish procedural law recognises different forms of enforcement title and situations in which enforcement may become possible before a judgment becomes final.
Digital assets create additional practical problems because they may be transferred rapidly and may involve custodians or exchanges located outside Poland.
Whether an effective Polish interim measure can be used depends on the legal nature of the asset, the entity controlling it, jurisdiction and the method of security available in the particular proceedings.
Where assets are held through a centralised exchange or custodian, identifying the entity that legally controls the relevant rights may be more important than identifying a blockchain wallet alone.
Asset tracing should therefore begin as early as possible.
In cases involving suspected fraud or criminal conduct, civil protective measures may also need to be coordinated with criminal-law asset-preservation mechanisms.
Many substantial asset-preservation cases involving Poland have an international dimension.
The claimant may be foreign, the underlying litigation may take place outside Poland, or the debtor may hold assets across several jurisdictions.
The fact that a claimant is foreign does not prevent it from seeking interim protection in Poland. However, the availability of measures from a Polish court depends on the applicable rules of international jurisdiction. It should not be presented as an unconditional right to seek Polish measures merely because assets may be connected with Poland.
Within the European Union, two regimes are particularly important:
the European Account Preservation Order under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014; and
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, commonly known as Brussels I Recast.
The EAPO provides a separate EU procedure enabling a creditor in qualifying cross-border civil and commercial cases to preserve funds in bank accounts.
A major feature of the regime is the element of surprise.
Unlike the position under national Polish security proceedings, the EAPO Regulation expressly provides that the debtor is not notified of the application or heard before the Preservation Order is issued.
An EAPO issued in one participating Member State can generally be recognised and enforced in another participating Member State without a separate declaration of enforceability.
The Regulation contains its own requirements relating to the claim, the risk justifying preservation, procedure, security and debtor protection.
Where the creditor has not yet obtained a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument requiring the debtor to pay the claim, the Regulation provides, as a rule, for security to be required from the creditor, subject to the exceptions permitted by the Regulation.
The EAPO regime also contains a mechanism which, subject to its statutory conditions, may allow a creditor who does not know the debtor’s account information to request assistance in obtaining the information needed to identify the relevant account.
Denmark does not participate in the EAPO regime.
Brussels I Recast is relevant both to jurisdiction and to the circulation of judgments within the European Union.
Article 35 can, in appropriate circumstances, permit an application to a court of a Member State for provisional or protective measures even where courts of another Member State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the dispute.
The availability and effectiveness of this route should be assessed in light of the particular assets and the connection with Poland.
A significant limitation concerns measures granted without the defendant having been summoned to appear.
Under Brussels I Recast, such measures are generally outside the Regulation’s concept of a “judgment” capable of circulation under the ordinary recognition and enforcement regime unless the relevant requirements concerning service before enforcement are met.
In cross-border cases, it may therefore be more efficient in some circumstances to seek independent Polish security over Polish assets rather than attempt to rely exclusively on a foreign provisional order.
A respondent affected by interim security has procedural remedies.
A distinction should be made between an appeal against the decision granting security (zażalenie) and a request to vary or discharge an existing security measure because the circumstances justifying it have subsequently ceased to exist or changed.
The appropriate route depends on the procedural stage and the grounds relied upon.
A respondent may challenge, among other things, whether the statutory prerequisites were satisfied, whether the measure corresponds to a legally permitted method of security and whether its scope is disproportionate.
A challenge should not be described as succeeding simply because the applicant breached a common-law duty of “material disclosure”, since Polish law does not apply that doctrine as such.
Interim protection can cause significant economic consequences for the respondent.
Polish law therefore contains mechanisms intended to balance the parties’ interests.
Under Article 739 CPC, the court may make implementation of a securing order conditional on the applicant providing security for potential claims of the respondent or, depending on the circumstances, other persons affected by implementation of the measure.
There are statutory exceptions to this rule for certain categories of claims and applicants.
Separately, Article 746 CPC creates a damages claim in specified circumstances where the respondent has suffered loss through implementation of security and, for example, the applicant fails to commence the substantive proceedings within the prescribed period, withdraws the claim, the claim is rejected or dismissed, or the proceedings are discontinued in circumstances covered by the provision.
This liability should therefore not be described simply as compensation for obtaining an order “improperly” or for failing to satisfy a common-law disclosure duty. Its conditions are governed by the CPC.
Security is temporary, but there is no single duration applicable to every measure.
It may lapse because the main proceedings were not commenced in time, because of the outcome of the substantive proceedings or because statutory post-judgment periods expire.
Article 754¹ CPC also contains specific rules on the lapse of security after a final decision allowing the secured claim. Depending on the method of security, the creditor must take the required enforcement steps within the statutory period if the security is to remain effective.
This is another reason why enforcement planning should begin before the substantive judgment is obtained.
A debtor with significant wealth may use several companies, accounts, intermediaries and jurisdictions.
In those cases, one Polish attachment may secure only part of the exposure.
A successful strategy normally begins with identifying:
the debtor against whom the substantive claim exists;
the legal owner of each relevant asset;
the jurisdiction in which the asset or right is located;
the entity exercising control over the asset;
the available national or EU protective measure; and
the sequence in which applications should be made.
Simultaneous or closely coordinated measures in several jurisdictions can sometimes be necessary to avoid value being shifted from an attached asset to an unprotected one.
Before applying for interim security in Poland, consider the following:
Claim: identify the substantive claim and collect documents sufficient to make it plausible.
Legal interest: explain why lack of security would make enforcement or achievement of the purpose of the proceedings impossible or seriously difficult.
Nature of the claim: establish whether the claim is monetary or non-monetary.
Measure: select a method permitted by the CPC.
Amount: for a monetary claim, specify the amount to be secured in accordance with the CPC.
Assets: identify relevant assets and third parties as precisely as reasonably possible.
Urgency: explain any transactions, transfers or other facts making rapid action necessary.
Proportionality: ensure that the requested security is sufficient but not excessive.
Evidence: attach the documentary material necessary for the court to assess the application.
Implementation: determine in advance whether implementation will require a court enforcement officer or another authority.
Applicant security: consider whether the court may require a deposit or other security under Article 739 CPC.
Main proceedings: if applying before proceedings are commenced, be ready to file the substantive case within the deadline fixed by the court, which will generally not exceed two weeks.
Cross-border issues: consider Polish jurisdiction, Brussels I Recast and, where applicable, the EAPO Regulation.
| Feature | Interim security before or during proceedings | Post-judgment enforcement |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Preserve effective protection pending determination of the claim | Obtain satisfaction of a claim supported by an enforceable title |
| Legal basis | Primarily Articles 730 et seq. CPC | Enforcement provisions of the CPC |
| Core test | Prima facie claim plus legal interest in security | Existence of the relevant enforceable title and satisfaction of enforcement requirements |
| Asset dissipation | Potentially important evidence of legal interest, but not a separate statutory prerequisite | Not normally a condition for commencement of enforcement |
| Available measures | For monetary claims, principally the statutory methods in Article 747 CPC; for non-monetary claims, broader discretion under Article 755 CPC | Enforcement measures available under the CPC |
| Prior hearing | Depends on the applicable procedural rules; certain measures can take effect before service on the respondent | Debtor protection follows the relevant enforcement rules |
| Result | Generally preserves assets or the legal position | Can result in actual satisfaction of the creditor |
| Cross-border tools | National security, Article 35 Brussels I Recast, EAPO where applicable | EU and national mechanisms for recognition and enforcement |
The cost of an asset-preservation strategy can include:
the court fee for the application;
legal fees;
enforcement-officer fees and expenses;
asset-tracing and forensic costs;
translation costs in cross-border matters; and
any security the court requires the applicant to provide.
The applicable court fee should be determined by reference to the Polish Act on Court Costs in Civil Cases and to the procedural stage at which security is sought. In particular, the fee rules differ where an application to secure a monetary claim is made before the substantive proceedings are commenced.
For substantial cross-border cases, forensic and coordination costs may exceed the court fee itself.
Documents, corporate records and financial data can become harder to obtain after a dispute becomes overt.
For digital assets, reliable forensic preservation may be particularly important.
The legally strongest application may still be ineffective if it targets the wrong asset or the wrong legal owner.
Do not treat “urgency” or “dissipation” as formulaic statutory tests. Explain instead the concrete circumstances demonstrating the legal interest required by Article 730¹ CPC.
Polish procedure may allow security to be implemented before the respondent is notified. This advantage results from the procedural rules governing determination, service and implementation of security — not from a separate applicant-elected “ex parte injunction” regime.
Once an order is made, delay in implementation may materially reduce its value.
Identify the competent enforcement route, relevant third parties and necessary documents in advance.
Where accounts or assets are spread across Member States, compare the Polish national-security route with the EAPO and other measures available under EU and national law.
Jurisdiction, the classification of the claim, the correct method of security and the implementation route can determine whether the measure provides effective protection in practice.
Interim security under Polish law can provide powerful protection where a creditor faces a genuine risk that a future judgment will become difficult or impossible to enforce.
For international clients, however, it is important not to equate the Polish system with an English-law freezing injunction. Polish courts operate within a statutory framework: the applicant must make the claim and legal interest plausible, monetary claims must generally be secured by one or more of the methods specified in Article 747 CPC, and non-monetary claims benefit from the broader flexibility provided by Article 755 CPC.
Polish procedure can also preserve surprise without adopting the common-law “ex parte” model. In appropriate cases the respondent will not receive the securing order until the competent enforcement authority begins implementation.
Cross-border creditors should additionally consider the EAPO Regulation and Brussels I Recast, particularly where proceedings and assets are located in different Member States.
The effectiveness of any strategy ultimately depends on four elements: choosing the legally correct measure, presenting persuasive evidence, acting at the right time and ensuring immediate and technically correct implementation.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Advice should be obtained in relation to the facts, jurisdictional position and assets involved in each individual case.
Polish law does not recognise a separate remedy formally called a “freezing order”. For international purposes, the expression can be used to describe interim security (zabezpieczenie roszczenia) designed to preserve assets or otherwise protect the effectiveness of future proceedings or enforcement.
Under Article 730¹ CPC, the applicant must generally make the underlying claim plausible and demonstrate a legal interest in obtaining security.
For example, a legal interest may arise where the lack of security would make enforcement of a future judgment impossible or seriously difficult. Evidence of asset dissipation can demonstrate such a risk, but dissipation is not itself a separate statutory prerequisite.
Yes. For a monetary claim, Article 747 CPC permits security by attachment of the debtor’s receivable from a bank account.
The amount and method of security must be properly identified in the application.
Not necessarily. Detailed asset information is highly desirable and can make implementation substantially easier, but the CPC does not make knowledge of a specific account number a universal condition for obtaining security.
Yes, in appropriate circumstances an application may be determined without the respondent first being heard. Moreover, under Article 740 CPC certain securing orders implemented through an enforcement authority are served on the respondent only when implementation begins.
This is not, however, a separate English-style “ex parte freezing injunction” procedure chosen by the applicant.
Not in the common-law sense. Polish law does not impose the distinct “full and frank disclosure” doctrine applicable to certain English without-notice injunctions. Applicants remain subject to the general procedural duties imposed by Polish law and should present the facts and evidence necessary for a reliable determination of the application.
Article 737 CPC provides that an application should be determined without delay and, as a rule, within one week of filing. This is a procedural benchmark and not a guaranteed timetable in every case.
Yes.
If the court grants security before the substantive proceedings are commenced, it sets a deadline for bringing those proceedings. Under Article 733 §1 CPC, that deadline may generally not exceed two weeks. Failure to comply causes the security to lapse.
Where the measure is implemented through enforcement proceedings, the appropriate enforcement rules apply and implementation will typically involve a Polish court enforcement officer (komornik). The applicant should therefore not assume that it personally serves a bank with the order.
Potentially yes, provided that the Polish court has jurisdiction under the applicable domestic, EU or international rules. In EU cross-border cases, Article 35 Brussels I Recast and the EAPO Regulation may be particularly relevant.
Yes. The CPC provides for appellate review and other mechanisms for varying or discharging security.
An appeal against the original securing decision should be distinguished from a later request to vary or discharge security because the circumstances justifying it have changed or ceased to exist.
Yes, in the circumstances specifically provided for by Article 746 CPC. These may include cases where the applicant fails to commence the main proceedings in time, withdraws the claim or the claim is ultimately rejected or dismissed in circumstances covered by that provision.
Yes, where the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 are satisfied.
The EAPO is a genuinely without-notice EU mechanism: the debtor is not informed of the application before the Preservation Order is issued. It also contains, subject to statutory conditions, procedures that may assist a creditor in obtaining information necessary to identify the relevant bank account.
posted 17 minutes ago
posted 39 minutes ago
posted 42 minutes ago
posted 58 minutes ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Send welcome message