The relevant amendment to the Code of Civil
Procedure (“CCP”) was enacted under the Act of 10
May 2013 (Journal of Laws of 2013, item 654) and
became effective on 7 July 2013. Generally
speaking, the purpose of the amendment is to put an
end to the abuse of the electronic proceedings by
writ of payment consisting in the pursuit of time-
barred claims. The amendment limits the application
of the proceedings (commonly known as
proceedings before the e-court) to claims which
became due and payable up to three years prior to the
date of filing the claim (Article 50529a of CCP).
Under the new regulations, a claim in the electronic
proceedings by writ of payment must contain the
PESEL Personal Number or the NIP Tax Number for
both the claimant and the defendant, if they are
natural persona (individuals). However, if the
claimant and the defendant are not natural persons, there is an obligation to provide the National Court
Register (KRS) number. It should be stressed that it
is only in the proceedings before the e-court that the
claimant is required to provide the above details of
the defendant. Initially, the Sejm did not intend to
differentiate between the regular and electronic
proceedings; however, after the Senate’s amendment
had been adopted, it was decided otherwise.
Further, under the amendment to CCP, in the writ-
of-payment electronic proceedings the court may
impose a fine upon the claimant, its statutory
representative, or legal representative, if acting in
bad faith or failing to exercise due diligence it
provides an incorrect PESEL, NIP, KRS, and the
parties’ residential or registered address details. The
fine imposed can be up to PLN 5,000, in accordance
with the general principles adopted in CCP.
The next modification is intended to expand the
defendant’s rights in the course of the enforcement
proceedings. Under Article 8051 of CCP, added
under the amendment, the court enforcement officer
advises the debtor inter alia of the rules of due
delivery of the order for payment (obligation to issue
two advice notices), the right to file a request for
reinstatement of the deadline, or the right to file a
motion for stay of proceedings if the order for
payment is delivered to a different address than the
debtor’s residential address established in the course
of the enforcement proceedings. The purpose of the
court enforcement officer’s advice is to protect the
debtor. The above is to help avoid situations when
the court enforcement officer enforced receivables
against persons who were not at all aware that an
order for payment had been issued against them.
MILLER, CANFIELD,
W. BABICKI, A. CHEŁCHOWSKI I WSPÓLNICY SP.K.
ul. Batorego 28-32
81-366 Gdynia
Tel. +48 58 782-0050
Fax +48 58 782-0060
gdynia@pl.millercanfield.com
ul. Nowogrodzka 11
00-513 Warszawa
Tel. +48 22 447-4300
Fax +48 22 447-4301
warszawa@pl.millercanfield.com
ul. Skarbowców 23a
53-125 Wrocław
Tel. +48 71 780-3100
Fax +48 71 780-3101
wroclaw@pl.millercanfield.com
Disclaimer: This publication has been prepared for clients and professional associates of Miller Canfield. It is intended to provide only a summary
of certain recent legal developments of selected areas of law. For this reason the information contained in this publication should not form the
basis of any decision as to a particular course of action; nor should it be relied on as legal advice or regarded as a substitute for detailed advice in
individual cases. The services of a competent professional adviser should be obtained in each instance so that the applicability of the relevant
legislation or other legal development to the particular facts can be verified.