Defending the Debtor in Enforcement Proceedings

 

Enforcement by a court bailiff (komornik sądowy) is not the end of the road in legal terms; it is a separate stage governed by rules of its own. The most consequential of these rules is that the bailiff examines neither the merits nor the exigibility of the obligation covered by the enforceable title (Article 804 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, “KPC”). An argument that the debt is unfounded, when addressed to the bailiff, is therefore addressed to the wrong forum.

The proper fora exist, but there are three distinct ones:

 

This page describes all three fields, without illusions and without devices whose only certain effect would be to worsen the debtor’s position.

 

How to Challenge the Enforceable Title

Diagnosis First: The Provenance of the Enforceable Title

The basis of enforcement is an enforceable title furnished with an enforcement clause. The choice of remedy depends on the type and history of that title, which is why the analysis begins with the case file rather than with the client’s sense of grievance. It is the defects of the enforceable title, not persuasion addressed to the bailiff, that open the path of defense.

 

Regularity of service

A payment order of which the debtor first learns from the bailiff has, not infrequently, been served at an outdated address. Service through the bailiff (Article 139¹ KPC) has curtailed the fiction of constructive service since late 2019, yet titles created under the earlier regime continue to circulate. In such cases the Firm examines the regularity of service and, where grounds exist, secures the reopening of the time limit for a statement of opposition or charges against the payment order; the dispute then returns to adjudication on the merits, and the enforcement may be stayed.

---

Interlocutory appeal against the grant of the enforcement clause

A separate remedy is the interlocutory appeal against the decision granting the enforcement clause (Article 795 KPC); for the debtor, the time limit of one week runs from service of the notice of commencement of enforcement.

---

The lapse of the limitation period

Limitation requires the separation of two distinct planes, since their conflation is arguably the most common error of unassisted defense. A plea concerning the period preceding the judgment ought, as a rule, to have been raised in the underlying proceedings; consumers occupy an exceptionally strong position here, as the court takes limitation into account ex officio in their favor (Article 117 § 2¹ of the Civil Code, Kodeks cywilny, “KC”). Once the title has come into existence, what falls to be assessed is the limitation of the claim as adjudicated: six years for claims established by a final court judgment, a court settlement, or a settlement concluded before a mediator and approved by the court, and three years for periodic performances covered by the title and falling due in the future (Article 125 § 1 KC). The computation is complicated by interruptions: every application to commence enforcement interrupts the running of limitation, which begins anew after the proceedings are discontinued. The chronology of the case is therefore reconstructed from documents, including the history of earlier enforcements, rather than from recollection. Where the lapse of the limitation period appears on the face of the title itself, the bailiff should refuse to commence enforcement unless the creditor produces a document evidencing an interruption (Article 804 § 2 KPC); in practice, the discharge of even this duty can itself become a matter of dispute.

 

 

---

 

Defense Within the Enforcement Proceedings

Three Instruments and Their Time Limits

 

Complaint Against the Acts of the Bailiff (Article 767 KPC)

The complaint lies against acts and omissions of the bailiff: seizure of funds within the exempt amount, attachment of benefits excluded from enforcement, the settlement of costs, the manner in which acts are carried out. The time limit is one week, but its starting point varies with the circumstances: it runs from the day the act was performed where the party was present at it or had been notified of its date; in other cases, from the day of notification that the act had been performed, and in the absence of notification, from the day the party learned of it; in the case of an omission, from the day on which the act ought to have been performed. The complaint is heard by the district court but is lodged through the bailiff, who is empowered to allow it in full without referring it to the court; the filing fee is PLN 50. The filing of a complaint does not of itself stay the enforcement; a motion may, however, be made to suspend the proceedings within the scope under challenge.

---

The Opposition Action (Article 840 KPC)

The opposition action (powództwo przeciwegzekucyjne) seeks to deprive the enforceable title of enforceability in whole or in part. It comes into consideration above all where, after the title arose, an event occurred by reason of which the obligation was extinguished or can no longer be enforced: payment, an effective setoff, a release of the debt, or the lapse of the limitation period computed anew after the title came into existence. It may also be used to contest the events on which the grant of the enforcement clause was based. A candid caveat is in order: this is not an avenue for relitigating a lost case; pleas that could have been raised before the title arose are, as a rule, not recovered by this route. One practical element is decisive: the statement of claim does not of itself halt the bailiff, for which reason a motion to secure the action by suspension of the enforcement proceedings is filed in parallel, and whether the assets survive until judgment frequently depends on the quality of that motion.

---

The Third Party Action for Release of Property (Article 841 KPC)

Where property belonging to another has been seized in enforcement against the debtor, that person may bring an action for the release of the object from enforcement. The time limit is one month from the day the person learned of the infringement of his or her right, and a further practical constraint operates: once enforcement against a given object has concluded, in particular upon its sale, the action loses its object. Typical fact patterns include property of the spouse and household members seized at the debtor’s residence, objects held under leasing arrangements, and entrusted goods.

---

 

Motions That Impose Order on the Proceedings

Suspension, discontinuance, and limitation of the enforcement require a statutory basis or an appropriate position taken by the creditor; they do not follow upon the debtor’s mere wish, and no reliable counsel will assert otherwise. The realistic fields of action are:

• a demand that the least burdensome method be applied where part of the estate suffices for satisfaction (Article 799 § 1 KPC),
• an analysis of the competent authority where court and administrative enforcement converge, since the further course of the proceedings depends on the nature of the claim enforced and on specific statutory provisions,
• the control of costs.

The enforcement fee amounts, as a rule, to 10% of the sum recovered, but payment into the hands of the bailiff within one month of service of the notice of commencement reduces it to 3% (Article 27 of the Act of 28 February 2018 on Bailiff Enforcement Costs, ustawa o kosztach komorniczych); in justified cases a motion to reduce the fee may additionally be filed within seven days of service of the decision on costs (Article 48 of that Act).

 

 

What the Bailiff Cannot Seize 

Exempt Amounts and Statutory Exclusions

Funds in a bank account are exempt from seizure up to 75% of the minimum wage in each calendar month (Article 54 of the Banking Law, Prawo bankowe); in 2026 this amounts to PLN 3,604.50. The limit is shared across the accounts of a given person, renews at the beginning of each month, and does not apply to the enforcement of maintenance claims. The mechanics of a bank account seizure are described separately, as this is the debtor’s most common first encounter with enforcement.

The protection of earnings depends on the basis of employment, on the working time involved, and on the nature of the claim enforced; there is accordingly no single exempt amount for all.

Under a contract of employment for full working time and for claims other than maintenance, deductions may reach one half of the remuneration, with an exempt amount at the level of the net minimum wage; for maintenance claims, deductions may reach three fifths and no exempt amount applies.

Income from contracts of mandate and other recurring receipts that secure the debtor’s subsistence may enjoy protection equivalent to a salary (Article 833 § 2¹ KPC), with the qualification that this protection must be demonstrated before the bailiff by motion and supporting documents; the contract alone does not engage it automatically.

Retirement and disability pensions are subject to separate deduction ceilings and exempt amounts, adjusted annually, which are verified as at the date of the seizure.

Enforcement against movables excludes, inter alia:

• basic household equipment,
• stores of food and fuel for one month,
• objects necessary for education,
• and tools indispensable to the debtor’s personal gainful work, with the exception of motor vehicles (Article 829 KPC).

The catalogue does not operate unconditionally, and separate regulations apply to farmers.

Child benefits, family benefits, and social assistance payments are likewise not subject to enforcement (Article 833 § 6 KPC).

A distinct boundary concerns the roof over the debtor’s head: an auction of premises serving the debtor’s housing needs is not conducted where the principal claim enforced is lower than one twentieth of the estimated value, subject to the exceptions provided by statute (Article 952¹ § 5 KPC).

Seizures effected automatically, above all those of bank accounts, call for prompt verification against these limits, since the bank and the employer apply them on the basis of whatever data happen to be at their disposal.

Each item seized is checked against the list of exclusions, and a complaint or a motion to the bailiff follows before the funds are transferred.

 

 

Composition With the Creditor

A Calculation Made on Both Sides

A creditor contemplating enforcement against real property sees quarters of procedure and the call prices: three fourths of the estimated value at the first auction, two thirds at the second. A fund that purchased the claim for a fraction of its face value has a different profitability threshold than the bank that extended the credit. From that vantage point, a certain and secured repayment schedule is at times worth more than the uncertainty of auction, and it appears that sensibly calculated arrangements are concluded more often than the debtor’s position would suggest. The Firm is able to present that calculation credibly because it also conducts debt recovery for creditors and knows the criteria by which the other side evaluates offers.

The timing of a composition has, moreover, a financial dimension: earlier payment into the hands of the bailiff reduces the enforcement fee from 10% to 3%, and an arrangement with the creditor leading to discontinuance alters the allocation of fees between the parties (Articles 27 and 29 of the Act on Bailiff Enforcement Costs). Fairness requires a warning as to the other side of the coin: a settlement or a partial payment may constitute an acknowledgment of the debt, which interrupts the running of limitation. Before anything is signed, it is examined whether the arrangement surrenders the plea that constitutes the strongest card of the defense.

Where the indebtedness durably exceeds the debtor’s assets and income, this is stated plainly and the matter is directed toward restructuring or bankruptcy rather than toward the sale of hope that the storm will pass. And where enforcement against a company proves ineffective and the creditor reaches for the personal assets of the management board, a separate front opens, conducted within the defense of management board members against liability under Article 299 of the Commercial Companies Code (Kodeks spółek handlowych).

 

Boundaries Not Crossed

The Firm does not advise the concealment or removal of assets. A transaction prejudicial to the creditor may be declared ineffective as against that creditor by way of the actio pauliana, and, where the statutory elements are satisfied, elements assessed invariably through the prism of intent, the state of solvency, and the circumstances of the particular transaction, criminal liability for frustrating the satisfaction of a creditor comes into consideration. The boundary between lawful asset protection planned in advance and acting to the detriment of creditors is drawn before the transaction, not after it; once enforcement has commenced, the field of lawful dispositions of assets is already very narrow.

For the same reason, a warning is due against offers of “debt cancellation,” “register cleansing,” or a guaranteed halt of the bailiff for a fee paid in advance. An effective defense of the debtor requires no miracles, only the case file, the time limits, and the legal grounds; even the deletion of an entry from a debtors’ register follows a procedure, not a price list of promises.

 

The Scope of the Initial Analysis

The initial review covers the title and the enforcement clause, the history of service, the limitation chronology inclusive of interruptions, a comparison of the seizures effected against the list of statutory exclusions, and the costs.

At the outset, we require the notice of commencement of enforcement, the enforceable title, and correspondence from the bailiff, including information on any attachments already made.

Upon its completion it is known which of the three fields of defense is realistic in the given case, and the conclusions are presented with time limits and figures, not with promises.

 

Engagements take the form of