Chapter | ICLG | 2027
We wrote the Poland chapter of ICLG Competition Litigation 2027, which explains competition litigation in Poland: who can sue for damages, within what time limits, what you must prove and what a claim costs.
ICLG Competition Litigation 2027 is the 19th edition of an international guide to competition law disputes. It is published by London-based Global Legal Group in the ICLG (International Comparative Legal Guides) series, which covers 59 practice areas and lets lawyers compare the law of different countries.
The 2027 edition contains an expert analysis chapter on private enforcement of EU competition law and 18 country chapters. Each country chapter answers the same set of questions: from interim remedies, through evidence, timing and costs, to leniency and anticipated reforms. This lets you compare Poland with other jurisdictions point by point. The contributing editor is Euan Burrows of White & Case LLP.
The Poland chapter (chapter 13) was written by Kinga Miller, Marta Solarska-Kaleńczuk and Michał Wołoszański of Wołoszański & Partners. You can read it free of charge on iclg.com and, once registered, download it as a PDF.
In Poland, anyone harmed by a competition law infringement can claim damages: direct and indirect purchasers, suppliers, competitors and umbrella claimants (customers of firms outside the cartel that raised prices under its cover). Cartel members are jointly and severally liable for the whole harm, so you choose whom to sue.
The legal basis is the Act of 21 April 2017 on Claims for Redress of Damage Caused by the Infringement of Competition Law (the Damages Act), in force since 27 June 2017. It implements the EU Damages Directive 2014/104/EU and covers infringements of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Articles 6 and 9 of the Polish Competition and Consumer Protection Act: prohibited agreements, including cartels, and abuse of a dominant position. Where the Act is silent, the Civil Code applies.
You can bring a competition damages claim without a decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK): Polish law draws no formal distinction between claims that follow an authority decision (follow-on) and those that do not (stand-alone). A decision does, however, give you a significant evidential advantage.
A final UOKiK decision, or a final judgment on appeal against it, binds the civil court as to the infringement. A European Commission decision binds the court under Article 16 of Regulation 1/2003. A decision of another EU Member State's authority is at least prima facie evidence of the infringement. You must still establish the remaining elements of liability, above all the amount of harm.
In a stand-alone claim you also have to prove the infringement itself, and court-ordered disclosure cannot replace UOKiK's power to inspect business premises. Secret cartels are the hardest to prove; restrictions written into contracts, such as resale price maintenance, exclusivity or territorial limits, are easier. Stand-alone claims can still pay off: the largest publicly reported first instance award, PLN 163.7 million plus interest (over PLN 263 million with interest) in Magna Polonia v Emitel, was made in a stand-alone case that also relied on a breach of confidentiality. The parties settled on appeal for PLN 192.5 million.
You have five years to bring a competition damages claim in Poland. The period runs from the end of the infringement and from when your business knew, or with due diligence could have known, of the harm and the infringer.
The absolute limit is ten years from the end of the infringement, not from the event that caused the harm. For long-running cartels, this keeps infringers exposed to claims for years longer. The period is suspended when UOKiK, the European Commission or another Member State's authority opens proceedings, until one year after the decision becomes final or the proceedings otherwise close.
The Damages Act applies to claims arising after 27 June 2017. Earlier harm is generally subject to the Civil Code's three-year period from knowledge of the harm and the liable person, subject to transitional rules. Such claims are assessed in light of the Court of Justice's judgment in Volvo v RM: a period that starts running before the injured party could know the essential facts may undermine the effectiveness of Article 101 TFEU.
We estimate that the first instance usually takes two to four years, and an appeal another one to two. The court-appointed expert is the main source of delay. The court may first rule on liability alone in an interlocutory judgment.
In a competition damages claim in Poland, you mainly have to prove the amount of harm. The Damages Act presumes the infringer's fault and that the infringement caused harm, for every infringement, not only cartels.
Poland went further here than Directive 2014/104/EU, which presumes harm only for cartels (Article 7 of the Damages Act). The defendant can rebut the presumptions. Where exact quantification is impossible or excessively difficult, the court may award an appropriate sum at its discretion, and it may ask the President of UOKiK for help with the figures. Only the opinion of a court-appointed expert counts as expert evidence; a party's private report supports its case but is not an independent source of findings.
There is no general discovery in Poland. Competition cases, however, have a dedicated mechanism: the court may order the opposing party, a third party or a competition authority to disclose evidence. You must substantiate the claim, describe the evidence precisely and undertake to use it only in these proceedings. The mechanism is available only once proceedings have begun, and disclosure from an authority is a last resort when the evidence cannot be obtained from a party or a third party. If evidence is concealed or destroyed, the court may treat the facts as proven.
A defendant in a Polish cartel damages case can argue that the claimant passed the overcharge on to its own customers, but the defendant bears the burden of proof. Even then, the claimant can still recover lost profits from reduced sales volume.
Indirect purchasers have full standing. The Damages Act presumes that the overcharge reached them if they show that the infringement caused an overcharge for the direct purchaser and that they bought the goods or services concerned, or goods derived from them. The presumption is rebuttable and only an indirect purchaser can rely on it.
In December 2025 the President of UOKiK encouraged injured parties, most recently farmers who overpaid colluding machinery distributors, to sue, citing estimates that cartel overcharges average around 10-15%. That is an estimate, not a statutory presumption of the amount of harm. Claims arising from the trucks cartel are still pending.
Group proceedings are available in Polish competition cases but rarely used. They are strictly opt-in (each member must join the group) and need at least ten members with claims of the same kind based on the same facts.
Monetary claims must be standardised into sub-groups. Since 2024 this no longer applies to consumer claims, and businesses can avoid it by seeking a ruling on liability only and pursuing the amounts individually. In practice, injured parties more often assign their claims to a single vehicle that sues in its own name. Trade associations can also sue for an injured business, and consumer organisations for an injured consumer, in each case with written consent.
Representative actions, introduced from 29 August 2024 under Directive (EU) 2020/1828, do not cover infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, so they are not a route to antitrust damages.
The court fee for a competition damages claim in Poland is 5% of the amount claimed, capped at PLN 100,000. The cap was halved in 2025.
The losing party reimburses costs, but legal fees are awarded at regulated tariff rates, at most six times the minimum, which usually falls short of the actual cost. A pure contingency fee is not permitted; a success fee on top of a base fee is permitted and common. In group proceedings, counsel's fee may be a share of the amount awarded, capped at 20%.
Third-party litigation funding is permitted, needs no licence and is not regulated by statute. There is no published data on how widely it is used in Poland.
The leniency programme run by the President of UOKiK does not protect against a damages claim: it gives immunity from, or a reduction of, the fine, but neither a successful nor an unsuccessful applicant obtains civil immunity.
The Damages Act does limit the exposure of an immunity recipient. It is liable to its own direct and indirect purchasers or suppliers, and to other injured parties only where they cannot obtain full compensation from the other infringers. A similar limit applies to a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) whose market share remained under 5% for the whole infringement, where full joint and several liability would irreversibly threaten its economic viability. It does not apply to an SME that led the infringement, drew others into it or had infringed before.
A leniency statement prepared for the authority is absolutely protected: a court will never order its disclosure. The same applies to settlement submissions. Documents that existed independently of the application are not protected.
Reform of collective redress is the most significant prospect for competition litigation in Poland, but according to the chapter (October 2026) no bill is pending. The limits of the opt-in model, the standardisation requirement and the length of certification are widely recognised, and opt-out has been debated for years.
Third-party funding is under policy review at EU level, following the European Parliament's 2022 resolution. Breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) alone fall under general tort rules rather than the Damages Act, unless the same conduct also infringes Article 102 TFEU or its Polish equivalent. Case law under the Damages Act is still limited, with no settled practice yet on disclosure or on judicial estimation of harm.
If your business bought from a cartel member, even through an intermediary, check the limitation periods before the claim becomes time-barred, and check whether UOKiK or the European Commission has already issued a decision. If your business is the defendant, review the passing-on defence, the liability limits for leniency recipients and SMEs, and a third-party notice to other cartel members: you cannot force them into the case as co-defendants, but the notice stops them from disputing the judgment in a later recourse claim.
Legal position: as described in the chapter published on 9 October 2026.
Chapter first published in: ICLG - Competition Litigation Laws and Regulations 2027 (opens in a new tab) (Global Legal Group).
Usually yes: if your business bought cartelised goods in Poland, a Polish court will generally have jurisdiction over foreign cartel members too.
Polish courts have jurisdiction where the defendant has its seat in Poland or, in tort cases, where the harmful event occurred or may occur. For cartels, the Court of Justice links the place of harm to the market affected and, depending on the circumstances, to the place of purchase. You do not need a contract with the defendant. If one defendant is based in Poland, you can sue closely connected foreign cartel members alongside it where separate cases could lead to irreconcilable judgments.
At first instance, the regional court (sąd okręgowy) hears the claim, whatever its value.
The Court of Competition and Consumer Protection (SOKiK) in Warsaw hears appeals against UOKiK decisions, not damages claims. You can also bring a claim before a court already hearing another claim arising from the same infringement, which makes consolidation easier. An appeal is a full rehearing on fact and law. A final second instance judgment can go to the Supreme Court on a cassation appeal if the claim is worth at least PLN 50,000 and passes the admissibility filter.
No: fines imposed by UOKiK or the European Commission are not deducted from damages.
Fines and damages serve different purposes and go to different recipients. The court does take into account what you have already received, for example under a redress scheme or settlement, because you cannot end up better off than without the infringement. If you settle with one cartel member, you can claim from the others only the harm reduced by that member's share.
No: Polish law does not allow exemplary or punitive damages and expressly rules out overcompensation.
You are entitled to full compensation: the difference between your actual position and the position you would have been in without the infringement. It covers actual loss, lost profits and statutory interest. Where exact quantification is impossible or excessively difficult, the court may award an appropriate sum at its discretion.
Yes: interim relief is available in competition cases under the general rules, including before proceedings start.
The court often decides the application without hearing the other side. If it grants relief before proceedings, you must file the claim within the period it sets, of up to two weeks. You must substantiate the claim and show that without security, enforcement or the aim of the proceedings would be prevented or seriously impeded. For monetary claims, the court can attach accounts, movables and receivables or create a compulsory mortgage.
Related service
We act for claimants and defendants in competition damages claims. See how we work, or read the full chapter at the publisher.
