POLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Jaroslaw Kruk, Joanna Bogdanska and Urszula Brzozowska, KW Kruk and Partners Law Firm
2. Procedures and Trials 2.1 Disclosure of Defendants’ Assets Disclosure Procedures
Cross-Undertaking in Damages Unlike in common law systems, under Polish civil procedure (Articles 730–757 of the Code of Civil Pro - cedure) Polish courts typically do not require a for - mal cross-undertaking in damages from claimants when granting interim injunctions, although courts may sometimes request the claimant to provide a security deposit to cover potential wrongful loss. This approach simplifies asset freezing applications and lowers the financial risk for claimants. 2.2 Preserving Evidence Legal Measures to Secure Evidence Under Polish law, when there is a credible risk that crucial evidence might be destroyed or suppressed, a party may request the court to issue a preservation order. These orders are designed to secure relevant documents and other evidence pending the outcome of the proceedings. This mechanism is particularly useful in cases involving economic or corporate crimes where the alteration or destruction of evidence is a genuine threat. Key measures include: • interim injunctions – the court may grant orders aimed specifically at preserving evidence, ensuring that documents or electronic data remain intact; and • asset and evidence freezing orders – although pri - marily used to secure assets, these orders can also protect evidence by freezing accounts or records that may contain vital information. Physical Searches of Premises Under Polish law, parties to civil or commercial dis - putes have no right to physically search a defendant’s premises or business. Only state authorities (court, prosecutors or police) may conduct physical searches upon court warrant or prosecutor’s order. Requirements and Cross-Undertaking in Damages To obtain these remedies, the claimant must show: • credible evidence of urgency – proof that evidence is at risk; and • strict proportionality – the search must be narrowly tailored to the dispute.
Under Polish law, claimants may apply for interim asset preservation orders, which can include dis - closure obligations. Although there is no standalone statutory “asset disclosure order”, courts may require the defendant to identify assets in support of enforce - ment or preservation, as follows. • In Polish civil law, formal asset disclosure from a defendant is typically available after a judgment is issued. Before judgment, claimants may apply for interim freezing orders or evidence preservation, although broad pre-action disclosure of assets is not permitted. • In criminal cases, prosecutors and courts have wide powers to obtain information about a sus - pect’s assets at any stage of proceedings. This includes compelling third parties to disclose infor - mation, seizing assets and tracing funds held by nominees. • In bankruptcy and restructuring cases, court- appointed administrators can demand comprehen - sive asset disclosures from the debtor and third parties. There are also mechanisms to reverse fraudulent transfers and secure hidden assets. Failure to comply with disclosure obligations in civil or insolvency proceedings may result in fines, coercive detention or criminal liability for providing false infor - mation. In criminal cases, refusal to disclose assets can lead to additional charges or sanctions. Assets Held by Nominees Nominee arrangements typically involve one party holding assets or exercising rights on behalf of anoth - er, often based on a private agreement. While such arrangements are commonly recognised in certain jurisdictions, it should be noted that Polish law does not formally recognise the concept of a nominee as a distinct legal institution. In criminal proceedings, how - ever, it is possible to prosecute the actual beneficial owners if it can be demonstrated that such a relation - ship existed and that they exercised effective control over the assets or rights in question.
249 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook