Objection to a Default Judgment under Polish Civil Procedure: Time Limit, Content, Court Fee and Stay of Enforcement

The objection to a default judgment (sprzeciw od wyroku zaocznego) is the sole remedy by which a defendant against whom judgment has been entered in absentia may reopen the merits of the case. It must be lodged with the court that rendered the judgment within two weeks of service, and it must contain, at the outset, all procedural pleas, factual assertions and evidence, since material omitted from the objection is, as a rule, precluded. The objection does not, of itself, arrest enforcement: a default judgment allowing the claim is immediately enforceable ex officio, and only a separate order staying that enforceability, presented to the enforcement officer, halts execution. This article examines the preconditions, time limit, formal requirements, fee and effects of the objection under Article 344 of the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter “k.p.c.”), drawing on the case law of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, “SN”) and the current commentaries, and closes with a practical sequence for defendants and their counsel.

Introduction

Polish civil procedure treats the defendant’s silence as a procedural fact with consequences. Where the defendant files no answer to the complaint or fails to appear, the court may render a default judgment on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, and that judgment is enforceable before it becomes final. The corrective mechanism is the objection to a default judgment: a remedy that returns the case to the same court for a full re-examination, provided that the defendant acts within a short and inflexible period and pleads completely at the first attempt. The analysis that follows proceeds from the genesis of the default judgment (Part II), through the nature of the objection as a non-devolutive remedy (Part III), its time limit (Part IV), its content (Part V), the stay of immediate enforceability (Part VI), the court fee (Part VII) and the grounds for rejection (Part VIII), to the course of proceedings after a valid objection (Part IX) and a practical checklist (Part X).

The Default Judgment and Its Genesis

A court may render a default judgment at a closed session where the defendant has not filed an answer to the complaint within the prescribed period (Article 339 § 1 k.p.c.), or at a hearing which the defendant fails to attend or in which, though present, he does not participate (Article 340 § 1 k.p.c.). In either case the court accepts as true the plaintiff’s assertions of fact contained in the complaint and in the pleadings served on the defendant, unless they raise justified doubts or have been advanced in order to circumvent the law (Article 339 § 2 k.p.c.). The presumption, it should be stressed, concerns facts rather than law: the court remains bound to assess whether the claim follows from those facts and may, where doubts arise, take the evidence tendered by the plaintiff (judgment of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk of 25 January 2022, I ACa 594/21). In practice courts seldom avail themselves of that option, and the default judgment ordinarily mirrors the plaintiff’s account alone.

A default judgment allowing the claim is declared immediately enforceable ex officio (Article 333 § 1 point 3 k.p.c.). It thereby becomes an enforcement title: the plaintiff may obtain an enforcement clause and instruct a court enforcement officer (komornik) before the judgment acquires finality. Not infrequently the defendant first learns of the litigation from a bank account seizure.

How a Default Judgment Is Rendered Without the Defendant’s Knowledge

The most common cause is substituted service. A court letter twice notified for collection and not collected is deemed served on expiry of the last day for collection (Article 139 § 1 k.p.c.). Since 7 November 2019 the Code has provided a safeguard in the form of service by an enforcement officer, now confined to defendants who are natural persons: where such a defendant has not collected the complaint, the presiding judge obliges the plaintiff to have it served through a komornik (Article 139¹ § 1 k.p.c.). The mechanism, however, has gaps. Following the 2023 amendment, service by an enforcement officer is dispensed with where the currency of the address given in the complaint is not in doubt (Article 139¹ § 1¹ k.p.c.), and where the plaintiff proves by a document that the defendant resides at the address indicated, the twice-notified correspondence is deemed served (Article 139¹ § 3 k.p.c.). Companies and other entities entered in the National Court Register (KRS) receive court documents at their registered address, and an outdated entry exposes them to a fiction of service (Article 133 § 2² and Article 139 § 3 k.p.c.). Sole traders entered in the CEIDG business register receive documents at the address recorded there; if that address proves outdated, the court serves the first document at the trader’s residential address and charges the trader with the cost of any subsequent service by an enforcement officer, irrespective of the outcome (Article 133 § 2¹ and Article 139 § 2¹ k.p.c.). The upshot is that a default judgment against a company which has failed to update its registered address is usually entirely regular, and the objection lodged in time remains the only avenue of defence.

The Objection to a Default Judgment as a Non-Devolutive Remedy

The defendant’s remedy against a default judgment is the objection; the plaintiff’s is the appeal (Article 344 § 1 k.p.c.). The objection belongs to the category of “other means of challenge” (Article 363 § 1 k.p.c.): it suspends the judgment’s finality but does not carry the case to a higher court. The matter is re-examined by the same court, and it may be re-examined by the same bench that rendered the default judgment, since the judge is not disqualified on that ground (resolution of the SN of 18 March 2005, III CZP 97/04; judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 26 June 2006, SK 55/05). The arrangement does not offend the constitutional guarantee of two-instance proceedings, because the judgment rendered after the objection is appealable on the ordinary footing. In this respect the objection differs markedly from the statement of opposition to a payment order in writ proceedings, which deprives the payment order of legal force upon filing; a default judgment survives the objection until it is set aside by the final judgment.

The distinction between the two remedies has practical bite. An appeal by the defendant against a default judgment is inadmissible, and where it is lodged by an advocate or attorney-at-law in place of an objection it cannot be treated as an obvious clerical error and falls to be rejected (order of the SN of 17 November 2006, V CZ 85/06). Conversely, where the court rendered the judgment in conditions of default but omitted the word “default” (zaoczny) from it, the defendant nevertheless has the objection, even if he styled his pleading an appeal, and such an objection cannot be rejected for failure to observe the time limit under Article 344 § 1 k.p.c. (orders of the SN of 5 April 1974, III CRN 408/73, and of 7 November 1995, I PRN 45/95). A contrary view, tying the available remedy to the label the court attached to the judgment, was expressed in the order of the SN of 12 April 2013, IV CZ 27/13; a prudent defendant confronted with an unlabelled judgment therefore does not wait, but lodges the objection within two weeks of service.

Where a default judgment allows the claim only in part, the remedies coincide: the plaintiff appeals against the dismissing part and the defendant objects to the awarding part. The court of first instance then transmits the file with the appeal to the appellate court and takes up the objection once the appeal has been determined.

The Time Limit for the Objection to a Default Judgment

The objection is lodged within two weeks of service of the default judgment on the defendant (Article 344 § 1 k.p.c.), with the court that rendered the judgment. The period is statutory: the court may neither shorten nor extend it, though it may restore it on the general principles. The period is computed under the rules of civil law (Article 165 § 1 k.p.c. in conjunction with Articles 112 and 115 of the Kodeks cywilny, the Civil Code) and thus expires at the end of the day which corresponds by name to the day of service; a judgment served on a Tuesday opens a period ending on the Tuesday two weeks later. Where the last day falls on a Saturday or a public holiday, the period expires on the next working day. Posting the objection by registered mail at a Polish post office is equivalent to filing it with the court (Article 165 § 2 k.p.c.), yet on the final day it is safer to lodge the document at the court’s filing office against a receipt.

An objection lodged before service of the judgment, for instance where the defendant learned of it from the court’s online information portal or from the enforcement officer, is effective (so, unanimously, the commentators; compare the resolution of the SN of 14 December 1995, III CZP 173/95, rendered in the context of an application for written reasons, which held that a period reckoned from service marks only the closing date for the act). There is no reason to await the court’s envelope, and every day of delay works in favour of enforcement.

Defective Service: the Period Does Not Begin

Only regular service opens the period. A court’s erroneous assumption that the default judgment was served does not render it final (order of the SN of 22 April 1988, III CRN 90/88). A general reference in an enforcement officer’s notice of the commencement of enforcement does not substitute for service of a copy of the judgment, even if it allows the defendant to infer that a judgment was rendered and what it decided (order of the SN of 15 December 1998, I CKN 254/98). Even the final rejection of an application to reopen the proceedings does not cure the absence of service of the judgment with instructions on the objection (order of the SN of 25 October 2007, II CNP 166/07). Adjudication in absentia is an exception to the principle that both sides be heard, and the provisions on service may not be construed so as to curtail the defendant’s right of defence any further.

The practical consequence is that a defendant to whom the judgment was sent at an outdated address need not apply for restoration of the time limit. He lodges the objection and demonstrates that the period never began to run, there having been no service. Prudence nevertheless dictates that both instruments be combined: an objection to the default judgment pleading the absence of service, together with an application for restoration of the time limit, lodged ex abundanti cautela. The absence of instructions on the objection does not vitiate service, though it may justify restoration of the period.

Restoration of the Time Limit

Where service was regular but the defendant missed the period through no fault of his own, he may seek its restoration (Article 168 § 1 k.p.c.). The application is filed within one week of the cessation of the cause of the default, with a prima facie showing of the relevant circumstances, and the objection itself must be lodged together with it (Article 169 § 1 to 3 k.p.c.). After one year from the missed deadline restoration is possible only in exceptional cases (Article 169 § 4 k.p.c.). The objection attached to the application must be complete and paid: failure to pay the fee on the objection constitutes a formal defect of the application for restoration itself (resolution of the SN of 28 April 2010, III CZP 19/10). Typical grounds are hospitalisation, documented absence abroad or an error of the postal operator; reliance solely on one’s own neglect does not suffice.

The Content of the Objection to a Default Judgment (Article 344 § 2 k.p.c.)

The objection is a pleading and is therefore subject to the general requirements of Articles 126 et seq. k.p.c., and in addition to the special requirements of Article 344 § 2 k.p.c. In practice this entails the following elements:

• designation of the court and the case reference, and designation of the parties and their representatives;
• the title of the pleading, “objection to a default judgment”, with precise identification of the judgment (date, reference);
• the scope of the challenge, in whole or in a specified part, for example as to point 1 of the judgment or as to the amount above a stated sum; the unchallenged part becomes final (Article 363 § 1 k.p.c.), and an ill-defined scope will end in a summons to cure the defect;
• the value of the subject matter of the challenge (Article 126¹ k.p.c.), which determines the fee;
• the procedural pleas that must, on pain of forfeiture, be raised before joining issue on the merits;
• assertions of fact and the evidence supporting them, with an indication of the facts each item of evidence is to prove (Article 235¹ k.p.c.);
• a motion to set aside the default judgment and dismiss the claim (or reject the complaint or discontinue the proceedings), and for costs;
• a motion to stay immediate enforceability where its conditions are met, and a request for a hearing if the defendant wishes to ensure that the court will not decide at a closed session (Article 148¹ § 3 k.p.c.);
• signature, list of enclosures, power of attorney, proof of payment of the fee, and a copy of the objection with enclosures for the plaintiff.

The motion as to the disposition of the case (point 7) is not a statutory formal requirement, yet it structures the pleading and eases the court’s task at no cost to the defendant.

Pleas Forfeited If Not Raised in the Objection

The objection is the defendant’s first procedural act and hence the moment of joining issue on the merits. It is therefore in the objection that pleas which are thereafter inadmissible must be raised: the plea of incorrect valuation of the subject matter of the dispute (Article 25 § 2 k.p.c.), the plea of lack of jurisdiction which the parties could have cured by agreement (Article 202 k.p.c.), the plea of a mediation agreement (Article 202¹ k.p.c.), the plea of an arbitration clause (Article 1165 § 1 k.p.c.) and the plea of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of another state (Article 1105 § 6 in conjunction with Article 1104 § 2 k.p.c.). Their omission is not a formal defect and triggers no summons; the sole consequence is the irrevocable loss of the plea.

The same temporal rigour governs two instruments which defendants most often overlook. A counterclaim may be brought at the latest in the objection (Article 204 § 1 k.p.c.). A plea of set-off must be raised no later than upon joining issue, or within two weeks of the day on which the defendant’s claim became due (Article 203¹ § 2 k.p.c.); for claims which fell due earlier, the objection is thus the outer limit. Finally, the plea that the conditions for rendering a default judgment were absent, for instance because the complaint was defectively served, is treated in the case law as admissible only in the objection (decision of the SN of 7 February 1962, 2 CR 763/60).

Assertions and Evidence: Preclusion After the Objection

Article 205¹² § 1, second sentence, k.p.c. applies to the objection mutatis mutandis. Assertions and evidence tendered after the objection are disregarded unless the defendant shows prima facie that their earlier submission was impossible or that the need to submit them arose later. The objection is therefore to be a complete defence, not an announcement of one. The pleading should address every assertion in the complaint, identify the facts the defendant denies, and enclose the documents: contracts, proofs of payment, correspondence, demand letters, and, where necessary, nominate witnesses and an expert. Typical substantive pleas are limitation of the claim, performance, the plaintiff’s lack of standing (for example an unproven assignment), invalidity of the contract or unfair terms within it, failure to prove the amount claimed, and miscalculated interest.

A complete absence of assertions and evidence is a formal defect: the court summons the defendant to cure it and rejects the objection only after the summons has gone unheeded (order of the SN of 27 March 2000, III CKN 99/00; judgment of the SN of 20 May 2005, III CK 593/04; resolution of the full Civil Chamber of the SN of 18 May 1963, III CO 17/63). A bare statement that the defendant challenges the judgment in its entirety does not yet amount to a specification of pleas. By contrast, the absence of the procedural pleas referred to in Article 344 § 2 k.p.c. is not a curable defect (so A. Gałas in the commentary edited by T. Szanciło), which confirms that the court’s principal inquiry is whether the defendant contests the merits of the judgment at all.

The Stay of Immediate Enforceability

The objection neither deprives the default judgment of legal force nor of enforceability. The judgment loses force only upon being set aside by the final judgment (judgment of the SN of 23 April 1969, III CRN 445/68; Article 347 k.p.c.), and until then the enforcement officer may proceed. The only shield is a motion under Article 346 k.p.c., best placed within the objection itself.

The court will stay immediate enforceability where the default judgment was rendered in breach of the provisions governing its admissibility (for instance, the complaint was not validly served, or the defendant had filed an answer which the court overlooked), or where the defendant shows prima facie that his non-appearance was not culpable and the circumstances set out in the objection raise doubts as to the soundness of the judgment (Article 346 § 1 k.p.c.). A prima facie showing suffices; proof is not required, and in staying enforceability the court may order security measures. Separately, the court may revoke immediate enforceability where the defendant proves that the complaint was served under Article 139 § 1 k.p.c. at an address other than his residence current at the date of service (Article 346 § 1¹ k.p.c.).

The order staying enforceability must then be lodged with the enforcement officer together with an application to suspend the enforcement proceedings (Article 820, second sentence, k.p.c.); the officer will not suspend enforcement on the mere information that an objection has been lodged. Once the default judgment has been set aside, enforcement is discontinued (Article 825 point 2 k.p.c.), and in the final judgment the court, on the defendant’s motion, orders restitution of what has been enforced (Article 338 § 1 k.p.c.). It is advisable to include the restitution motion in the objection itself where enforcement is under way.

The Court Fee on the Objection to a Default Judgment and the Costs of the Objection

The objection attracts a fee equal to one half of the fee due on the complaint (Article 19(1) of the ustawa o kosztach sądowych w sprawach cywilnych, the Act of 28 July 2005 on Court Costs in Civil Cases, hereinafter “u.k.s.c.”), computed on the value of the subject matter of the challenge and rounded up to the nearest złoty (Article 21 u.k.s.c.). For a claim of PLN 60,000 the fee on the complaint is 5 per cent, that is PLN 3,000, and the fee on the objection PLN 1,500. A defendant unable to pay may lodge, with the objection, an application for exemption from court costs accompanied by a statement of means; if granted, the application removes the fiscal defect. A party represented by an advocate or attorney-at-law must file a complete application, since an incomplete one is returned without a summons (Article 102(4) u.k.s.c.), and after the final return of the application the presiding judge summons the party to pay the fee on the objection under Article 130 § 1 k.p.c. (Article 105a u.k.s.c.; so already the resolution of the SN of 27 March 2014, III CZP 133/13). A renewed application for exemption from the same fee is inadmissible, but counsel may, within one week, re-file the returned application supplemented with the missing statement (Article 130^1a § 3 k.p.c.; orders of the SN of 6 May 2024, III CZ 5/24, and of 27 February 2025, III CZ 195/24, although that position has attracted criticism in the literature).

A separate rule is laid down in Article 348 k.p.c.: the costs of the default hearing and of the objection, including the fee on the objection, are borne by the defendant even if the default judgment is subsequently set aside, unless his non-appearance was not culpable or the explanations he had sent before the hearing were not placed on the file. Success therefore does not guarantee recovery of the fee, and it is advisable to set out the reasons for the absence in the objection even where they are not needed for the stay.

Formal Defects and Rejection of the Objection to a Default Judgment (Article 344 § 3 k.p.c.)

The court rejects an objection to a default judgment which is inadmissible, belated, unpaid or afflicted with defects not cured despite a summons (Article 344 § 3 k.p.c.). Inadmissible is an objection against a non-existent or contested judgment, an objection by a person without standing, or an objection by the defendant against the part dismissing the claim, in which he lacks a gravamen. Formal and fiscal defects are cured within the period set, on pain of rejection. It is disputed in the literature whether the basis for the summons is Article 130 § 1 k.p.c. (so the case law of the SN) or Article 344 § 3 k.p.c. itself, with a judicial rather than statutory period (so J. Misztal-Konecka, M. Michalska-Marciniak and E. Rudkowska-Ząbczyk), but for the defendant the difference is immaterial: the summons must be complied with in time and to the letter. An explanation that the summons was not understood affords no protection against rejection if its wording was unambiguous (order of the SN of 21 December 1998, III CKN 772/99).

The order rejecting the objection may be issued at a closed session (Article 148 § 3 k.p.c.) and terminates the proceedings, so that a complaint lies against it to the court of second instance (Article 394 § 1 k.p.c.); the appellate court then examines ex officio whether the proceedings were void (order of the SN of 27 September 2000, V CKN 1465/00). The court issues no order admitting the objection, and were it to do so, such an order would not cure a belated objection (judgment of the SN of 14 March 1974, I PR 50/74). Conversely, an objection to which the court has already given course cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Article 344 § 2 k.p.c. (decision of the SN of 29 November 1960, 4 CR 640/60). Where the objection is rejected, the default judgment is deemed final from the first day after the expiry of the period for its challenge, not from the date of the order (judgment of the SN of 10 March 1993, I CRN 19/93), which matters, for instance, for the running of the limitation period of the claim established by the judgment.

The Proceedings After the Objection to a Default Judgment

If the objection is in order, the presiding judge directs that it be served on the plaintiff and gives the case course, where necessary scheduling a preparatory session or ordering an exchange of pleadings (Article 345 k.p.c.). A hearing is not mandatory: the court may decide the case at a closed session if it finds a hearing unnecessary, unless a party requested a hearing in its first pleading (Article 148¹ § 1 and 3 k.p.c.). The proceedings continue on the general principles, as though the default judgment had never been rendered, with one material difference: the presumption of truth of the plaintiff’s assertions under Article 339 § 2 k.p.c. ceases to operate. The plaintiff must prove the facts from which the claim is derived, and the defendant the facts which bar it.

The objection, however, reopens the process for the plaintiff as well. He may extend or modify the claim (resolution of the SN of 12 July 1988, III CZP 50/88), and since the proceedings are first-instance proceedings the prohibition of reformatio in peius does not apply. A defendant who contests the default judgment only in part should say so expressly, because the court re-examines the case within the limits of the challenge and the remainder of the judgment is final and binding. An objection by one of several defendants bound by uniform joinder operates in favour of the others (Article 73 § 2 k.p.c.); in the case of ordinary joinder, for instance joint and several debtors, each defendant must lodge his own objection. The objection may be withdrawn until it has been determined (order of the SN of 25 April 1974, III CRN 31/74).

After re-examining the case the court renders a judgment by which it upholds the default judgment in whole or in part, or sets it aside and rules on the claim, or rejects the complaint or discontinues the proceedings (Article 347 k.p.c.). Upholding the judgment extends to its immediate enforceability. The final judgment is appealable on the ordinary footing. An application to reopen the proceedings is no substitute for the objection: where the conditions for an objection exist, reopening is excluded, and vice versa (judgment of the SN of 11 December 1975, IV PR 254/75).

The Objection to a Default Judgment in Practice: Sequence and Recurrent Errors

The following sequence of steps proves serviceable in most cases:

• date of service: establish when and at what address the judgment was served, and whether valid service occurred at all; the time limit and the line of argument depend on it;
• service history of the complaint: check in the file or the online portal whether the complaint was served by an enforcement officer, by the fiction of Article 139 § 1 k.p.c., or at the registered address;
• time limit: compute the last day and plan to lodge the pleading no later than the day before;
• content of the judgment and the complaint: compare the sum awarded with the sum claimed and verify interest, costs and enforceability;
• procedural pleas: jurisdiction, arbitration clause, value of the subject matter, mediation agreement;
• substantive pleas with evidence: limitation, payment, lack of standing, invalidity, quantum, set-off, and where appropriate a counterclaim;
• motion under Article 346 k.p.c. to stay or revoke immediate enforceability, with a prima facie showing of the reasons for absence;
• fee: compute one half of the fee on the complaint, or file an application for exemption with a statement of means;
• enforcement officer: once the stay has been ordered, apply for suspension of enforcement (Article 820 k.p.c.);
• copies and enclosures: a complete set for the court and for each plaintiff, power of attorney, proof of payment.

The recurrent errors are, correspondingly: lodging an appeal instead of an objection, which in the hands of professional counsel ends in rejection; an objection confined to the sentence “I challenge the judgment in its entirety”, without assertions or evidence; deferring evidence despite the preclusion under Article 205¹² § 1 k.p.c.; omitting the plea of set-off or the counterclaim, which after the objection are no longer admissible in that case; failing to seek a stay and passively awaiting the completion of enforcement; a belated application for restoration (the period is one week) or an application without the objection attached; failure to pay the fee, or an incomplete application for exemption; and ignoring a summons to cure defects, or complying with it out of time.

Conclusion

The objection to a default judgment is lodged within two weeks of service of the judgment, with the court that rendered it. The pleading must contain the procedural pleas, the assertions of fact and the evidence, since their later submission is possible only upon a prima facie showing that it was previously impossible. The objection does not halt enforcement; that is achieved only by an order staying immediate enforceability, subsequently lodged with the enforcement officer. Defective service of the judgment means that the period never began to run, and the fee amounts to one half of the fee on the complaint. A defendant unfamiliar with these rules loses the case despite having the better of the argument; a defendant who applies them regains the full right of defence.

Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec analyses default judgments and the history of service, prepares objections to default judgments together with motions for a stay of enforceability and for restoration of the time limit, and, as part of its litigation practice in Poland, represents defendants in the proceedings following the objection, including where enforcement is already under way. With a default judgment every day counts, and it is advisable to contact counsel immediately upon receipt of the court’s letter or of a communication from the enforcement officer.

Legal status as at 30 September 2026. Sources: the Act of 17 November 1964, Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, consolidated text Dz.U. 2026, item 468, as amended); the Act of 28 July 2005 on Court Costs in Civil Cases (ustawa o kosztach sądowych w sprawach cywilnych, consolidated text Dz.U. 2025, item 1228); the case law of the Supreme Court; and the commentaries on Article 344 k.p.c. by J. Misztal-Konecka (System Postępowania Cywilnego, vol. 5, ed. A. Góra-Błaszczykowska, 2023), A. Gałas (ed. T. Szanciło, 2023), A. Zieliński and K. Flaga-Gieruszyńska (2025), E. Rudkowska-Ząbczyk and A. Fruk (eds. E. Marszałkowska-Krześ and I. Gil, 2026), and M. Michalska-Marciniak (ed. A. Marciniak, 2019).

Robert Nogacki

Robert Nogacki is a Polish attorney at law (radca prawny), the founder and managing partner of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec (Skarbiec Law Firm), which has operated continuously since 2006.

The law is equal for everyone, but the parties rarely are: on one side stands an organization with time, money, and lawyers, on the other a person with one business, one nest egg, and one life.

Clients rarely come to him with a legal problem. They come with a problem that also has a legal side: an audit that began with a single invoice, money entrusted to someone who has disappeared, a company that has to be passed on before it is too late. Most such matters are decided long before the first letter is written, in decisions made without asking and in deadlines nobody remembered. So he begins by asking how the client got here, not what the client should have done.

He advises entrepreneurs and families from more than a dozen countries, including those whose accounts the tax office has just seized and who do not know what to do tomorrow morning. He defends them in tax audits, customs and fiscal inspections, disputes with the tax authorities, and criminal tax proceedings. He represents victims of investment fraud and Ponzi schemes. He helps families set up family foundations and plan succession, so that a life’s work outlasts a single generation.

Not every case can be won. Every case can be run so that the client knows where they stand. Since 2006 he has represented the victims in the WGI case (Warszawska Grupa Inwestycyjna, the Warsaw Investment Group), one of the longest criminal cases in the history of the Polish financial market, because some things must not be left half finished, even when they take two decades. In the case of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange Zonda (Zondacrypto, operated by BB Trade Estonia OÜ), he represents several hundred victims in the criminal investigation conducted by Poland’s National Prosecutor’s Office and in the Estonian bankruptcy proceedings.

Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec is listed in the rankings of Poland’s largest tax advisory firms published by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna and Rzeczpospolita, and it is a four-time recipient (2015 to 2018) of the European Medal awarded by the Business Centre Club and the European Economic and Social Committee. Robert Nogacki publishes regularly, in the press and on the firm’s website, for people who have a problem rather than a law degree, because a legal opinion the client cannot understand protects only the lawyer.

He believes that the best legal advice is the kind that means the client never has to appear in court.