A court judgment is often perceived as the final victory in a civil dispute. In practice, it marks only the midpoint of the enforcement process. A creditor who delays further procedural steps may unexpectedly lose the protection granted by interim security, sometimes after as little as one month. Understanding when security expires, whether courts may intervene, and how to act in time is therefore essential for effective enforcement.
The role of security in civil proceedings
Interim security functions as a safeguard for the creditor. Its purpose is to ensure that a successful judgment can be enforced in practice, before the debtor has an opportunity to dissipate assets or conceal funds. By its nature, security is temporary. It remains in force only until the creditor initiates enforcement or takes other required procedural steps. At that stage, interim protection must give way to formal enforcement proceedings.
Under Article 754¹ of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, once a judgment becomes final, security may lapse automatically if the creditor fails to act within the statutory time limits.
Statutory time limits: one month or two
In most cases, security remains effective for two months from the date on which the judgment becomes final. If, during this period, the creditor does not apply for enforcement or execution of the security, protection expires by operation of law.
The law also provides for a shorter, one-month deadline. This stricter rule applies to particularly intrusive forms of security, including the seizure of movables, attachment of wages or receivables such as bank accounts, and compulsory administration of an enterprise or agricultural holding. In these cases, the legislator seeks to balance the creditor’s interests against the need to limit the burden imposed on the debtor.
Can the court modify the deadline?
At first glance, the statutory framework appears rigid. Article 754¹ §1 expressly allows the court to set a different deadline for the lapse of security, yet §2, which governs one-month cases, does not repeat this possibility.
Judicial practice, however, has adopted a more flexible approach. Courts generally accept that the deadline may also be extended or modified in one-month cases, provided that the creditor submits an appropriate application before the expiry of the original deadline. While the court may rule on the application at a later stage, the decisive factor is that it is filed while the security is still in force.
This interpretation reflects an attempt to reconcile two competing principles: effective protection of the creditor and the requirement to minimise unnecessary interference with the debtor’s position.
What should creditors do after a successful judgment?
A favourable judgment initiates, rather than concludes, the creditor’s task.
To preserve interim protection, several steps are crucial. First, the creditor must obtain the judgment together with an enforcement clause, without which enforcement proceedings cannot commence. Second, an application for enforcement or execution of the security should be filed without delay. Waiting until the end of the statutory period significantly increases the risk of losing protection. Finally, if objective obstacles arise, such as delays in obtaining the enforcement clause, the creditor should apply for a modification of the deadline before it expires.
Timely submission of such an application effectively suspends the running of the deadline and allows the court to consider maintaining security for a longer period.
The consequences of missing the deadline
If the creditor fails to act in time, security lapses automatically. No court decision is required and the effect is immediate. From that moment, enforcement authorities may no longer act on the basis of the original security order.
In practice, this often means starting the process anew, with the attendant costs and delays, and frequently losing the practical effects of earlier measures such as account attachments. Courts consistently hold that the lapse of security is final and cannot be remedied by reinstating the deadline.
Recurring mistakes in practice
The most common error is filing enforcement applications too late. Even minimal delay results in the loss of security. Another frequent issue is insufficient monitoring of procedural timelines, particularly the period between the issuance of the judgment and receipt of the enforcement clause. Confusion between the one-month and two-month deadlines also remains a persistent problem, especially in cases involving more intrusive forms of security.
Safeguarding interim protection
From a practical perspective, caution and proactive planning are essential. Creditors should maintain a margin of safety and avoid waiting until the final day. Anticipated procedural obstacles should prompt an early application to modify the deadline. Careful documentation of all steps taken may later prove decisive. In many cases, professional legal representation plays a critical role in ensuring that deadlines are monitored and appropriate action is taken in time.
Why interim security still matters
Interim security often determines whether a judgment will have real economic value. A favourable ruling that cannot be enforced offers little practical benefit, and the automatic lapse of security may irreversibly undermine enforcement prospects. For this reason, security should be treated not as a preliminary procedural tool, but as an integral element of the creditor’s enforcement strategy.
Statutory deadlines are not mere formalities. They define the boundary between effective protection and its irreversible loss. Creditors who act in time retain their safeguards. Those who do not lose them automatically. Awareness of this dynamic, combined with careful planning and timely applications, is therefore essential for translating judicial success into enforceable outcomes.
***
Based on: Studzińska, Joanna. 2025. “Dopuszczalność Zmiany Terminu Upadku Zabezpieczenia W postępowaniu Cywilnym”. PRAWO I WIĘŹ 53 (6). https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI53.1119.
***
Media contact: Paweł Siwek Science Communications Officer 📧 [email protected] 📞 +48 668 610 534
