Interim Measures (Injunctions) in Poland: Securing Claims Early

An interim measure, often described by international clients as an injunction, is a court order issued before or during proceedings to preserve the practical value of a future judgment. In Poland, interim measures are governed mainly by the Polish Code of Civil Procedure and may be used to secure monetary and non-monetary claims in civil and commercial cases [1].

This is informational material, not legal advice. The availability, scope, cost, and risks of an injunction Poland strategy depend on the facts, documents, type of claim, and procedural stage.

Why interim measures Poland commercial cases matter?

Commercial litigation can take time. During that time, assets may be transferred, bank accounts may be emptied, key records may become harder to access, or reputational damage may escalate. Interim measures Poland commercial proceedings are designed to reduce that risk before the final judgment is issued.

For international businesses, the practical question is usually not only whether a claim is legally justified. The key question is whether the claim will still be enforceable when the judgment becomes final. A properly prepared application may help secure claim Poland court proceedings at an early stage and protect business continuity.

Legal basis for urgent court measures Poland

Under Article 730 § 1 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, security may be granted in any civil case examined by a court or arbitral tribunal, unless a statute provides otherwise [1]. Under Article 730 § 2, security may be requested before proceedings are initiated or during proceedings. After an enforceable title has been obtained, security is available only if it is intended to secure a claim that is not yet due.

The two core conditions are set out in Article 730¹ § 1 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure: the applicant must make the claim plausible and must demonstrate a legal interest in obtaining security [1]. Making a claim plausible is not the same as fully proving it. The court must receive enough evidence to consider that the claim is credible at this preliminary stage.

Legal interest exists where lack of security would prevent or seriously hinder enforcement of a future judgment, or otherwise prevent or seriously hinder achievement of the purpose of the proceedings, as stated in Article 730¹ § 2 [1]. In business disputes, this may involve evidence of asset dissipation, insolvency risk, rapid corporate restructuring, planned disposal of real estate, or conduct showing an intention to avoid payment.

Evidence for injunction Poland applications

Evidence for injunction Poland applications should be specific, current, and connected to the risk being alleged. General commercial distrust is usually insufficient. Courts expect facts, not assumptions.

Useful materials may include:

• contracts, invoices, delivery confirmations, correspondence, and acknowledgements of debt;
• financial statements, registry filings, insolvency notices, or enforcement records;
• bank payment history showing delay, default, or selective payment;
• documents showing transfer of assets to related entities;
• screenshots, publications, or platform records in reputation and unfair competition matters;
• witness statements or internal documentation, where relevant and lawful.

In urgent cases, the application should explain why waiting for a standard judgment would create a concrete enforcement or business risk. The facts should be separated from legal argument. Opinions, suspicions, and business concerns should be clearly labelled as such and supported by objective circumstances where possible.

Freezing orders Poland and other forms of security

For monetary claims, Article 747 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure lists typical methods of security [1]. These include seizure of movable property, remuneration for work, bank accounts, receivables, and other property rights. The court may also establish a compulsory mortgage over real estate, prohibit disposal or encumbrance of certain assets or rights, or establish receivership over an enterprise, agricultural holding, or an establishment forming part of an enterprise or agricultural holding.

Freezing orders Poland are therefore not identical to common law freezing injunctions, but similar practical results may be achieved through Polish procedural tools. In cross-border civil and commercial cases involving bank accounts in EU Member States, except Denmark, the European Account Preservation Order under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 may also be relevant, subject to its specific conditions and exclusions [2].

For non-monetary claims, Article 755 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure gives the court broader flexibility [1]. The court may regulate the rights and obligations of the parties for the duration of proceedings, prohibit certain actions, order specific conduct, or suspend enforcement. This can be significant in shareholder disputes, unfair competition matters, defamation cases, IP-related conflicts, and disputes concerning access to corporate documents.

The no-satisfaction rule and selected exceptions

Article 731 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure provides an important safeguard: security should not aim to satisfy the claim, unless a statute provides otherwise [1]. This rule matters because interim measures are granted before final adjudication. The court should protect enforcement prospects without deciding the entire dispute in practice.

There are statutory areas where security may have a more performance-like effect. Examples include:

1. claims for maintenance;
2. claims for an annuity and certain related sums in cases of bodily injury, health disorder, or loss of a breadwinner;
3. employee remuneration claims.

These exceptions are not typical commercial injunction tools, but they illustrate that Polish law permits more far-reaching interim protection where the protected interest justifies it. The legal basis depends on the precise claim, including Articles 753 and 753¹ of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure [1].

Procedure, timing, and enforcement

An application for security should meet the requirements of a procedural pleading and indicate the requested method of security. Article 736 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure sets out specific elements, including the requested method of security and circumstances making the application plausible [1]. If the application is filed before the main proceedings are initiated, it should also briefly describe the subject matter of the case. For monetary claims, the secured amount must generally be specified.

Under Article 737, the court should examine an application for security without delay, generally no later than within one week of receipt, unless special provisions apply [1]. In practice, timing depends on the court, completeness of the filing, urgency, and the need to review documents.

If security is granted before the main proceedings begin, the court sets a deadline for filing the pleading initiating the proceedings. Under Article 733, that deadline may not exceed two weeks [1]. Missing it may cause the security to lapse.

Enforcement of the security order depends on its type. Some measures require a court enforcement officer. Others are effective through entries in public registers, notices to banks, or orders addressed to parties. The cost of the application and enforcement expenses depend on the factual and procedural situation, including the Act on Court Costs in Civil Matters [3].

Risks for applicants and defendants

Interim measures can be powerful. They can also be challenged. A defendant may file a complaint against the order, where available, or request modification or revocation if circumstances change, including under Article 742 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure [1].

An applicant should also consider liability risk. Under Article 746, if the applicant does not bring the main claim in time, withdraws it, loses the case, or the proceedings are discontinued in relevant circumstances, the party affected by security may claim compensation for damage caused by the enforcement of security [1]. This is particularly important where freezing a bank account may interrupt operations, affect payroll, or trigger reputational consequences.

For international companies, the strategic assessment should cover enforceability, proportionality, evidence, timing, and reputational exposure. An aggressive but poorly evidenced application may fail and strengthen the opponent’s procedural position. A precise application, supported by documents and proportionate remedies, is usually more effective.

For transaction-critical or dispute-sensitive matters requiring injunction Poland analysis, international businesses may contact us through Lawyersinpoland.com by Kopeć & Zaborowski.

FAQ: Interim Measures (Injunctions) in Poland

1. What is an injunction in Poland?

In Polish civil procedure, an injunction is usually referred to as an interim measure or security for a claim. It is a court order designed to preserve enforcement prospects or protect the purpose of proceedings before a final judgment is issued.

2. What must be shown to secure claim Poland court proceedings?

The applicant must make the claim plausible and demonstrate a legal interest in security. Legal interest usually means that lack of security would prevent or seriously hinder enforcement of a future judgment or the purpose of the proceedings.

3. Are freezing orders Poland available for bank accounts?

Yes. For monetary claims, Polish courts may secure claims by seizing bank accounts under Article 747 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. In certain EU cross-border cases, the European Account Preservation Order may also be relevant.

4. Can interim measures be obtained before filing the lawsuit?

Yes. Security may be requested before proceedings are initiated. If granted, the court sets a deadline for filing the pleading initiating the main proceedings, not exceeding two weeks under Article 733 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure.

5. How fast are urgent court measures Poland applications decided?

The Code of Civil Procedure states that applications should be examined without delay, generally no later than within one week, unless special rules apply. Actual timing depends on the court and the quality of the application.

6. Can the defendant challenge an interim measure?

Yes. The defendant may challenge the order and may request modification or revocation if legal or factual circumstances justify it. The available remedies depend on the type of order and procedural stage.

Bibliography

1. [1] Act of 17 November 1964 – Code of Civil Procedure, in particular Articles 730, 730¹, 731, 733, 736, 737, 742, 746, 747, 753, 753¹, and 755.
2. [2] Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure.
3. [3] Act of 28 July 2005 on Court Costs in Civil Matters.