“A fortress that parleys is already half taken,” Napoleon Bonaparte observed. A payment order in the order-for-payment proceeding is precisely such a fortress for the creditor: issued on the strength of documents of particular evidentiary weight, immediately enforceable as a security title. The debtor who receives one finds himself in the position of a besieged garrison—his bank account may be frozen before he has even formulated a defense. Objections are his only chance to break the blockade.
The Order-for-Payment: A Weapon Stronger Than the Admonition Order
Not all payment orders are created equal. In the order-for-payment proceeding, the creditor was required to present documents of high reliability—a bill of exchange, a check, an accepted invoice, an acknowledgment of debt. The court deemed these documents sufficient to rule without a hearing and without listening to the debtor.
The consequence? A payment order in the order-for-payment proceeding constitutes, from the moment of issuance, a security title enforceable without the need for a separate enforceability clause. The bailiff may seize your assets before you have filed your objections. “In war, speed is everything,” Suvorov liked to say. The creditor who has obtained an order-for-payment has exploited precisely this speed.
Objections, Not Opposition—Terminology Matters
In the order-for-payment proceeding, the remedy is objections (zarzuty), not a statement of opposition. This is not merely a semantic distinction—it transforms the entire dynamics of the proceeding:
A statement of opposition (in the admonition proceeding) causes the order to lose effect. The game begins anew.
Objections (in the order-for-payment proceeding) do not cause the order to lose effect. The order remains in force as a security title. The case proceeds to a hearing, but the debtor fights from a weaker position—he must overturn the grounds for issuance of the order.
“The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies”—this Roman maxim operates in reverse in the order-for-payment proceeding. It is the defendant who must prove that the order should not have been issued.
The Deadline: Two Weeks, One Month, or Three Months
The standard deadline for filing objections is two weeks from service of the order. But the legislature has provided exceptions for defendants abroad:
—one month—when the defendant resides or has a registered office abroad, but within the European Union, and has no representative in Poland, —three months—when service of the order takes place outside the territory of the European Union.
“Know your enemy and know yourself, and in a hundred battles you will never be in peril,” Sun Tzu taught. Knowledge of the deadline is an absolute prerequisite. Objections filed even one day late will be dismissed, and the order will become final.
Petrification of the Proceeding: A Frozen Battlefield
Once objections are filed, the order-for-payment proceeding enters a special phase—the legislature “freezes” the possibility of procedural transformations. The following are prohibited:
—party transformations—parties cannot be changed, nor can persons who should have been sued be summoned to participate, —counterclaims—absolutely inadmissible; if you have a claim against the plaintiff, you must pursue it in a separate action, —new claims—the plaintiff may not advance new demands in place of or alongside the existing ones (with narrow exceptions for recurring obligations).
“No plan survives first contact with the enemy,” Helmuth von Moltke observed. In the order-for-payment proceeding after objections are filed, this principle does not apply: the battlefield is rigidly defined, improvisation foreclosed.
What Must the Objections Contain?
Objections constitute a procedural document with particular requirements:
—an indication of whether you are challenging the order in full or in part, —procedural defenses that must be raised on pain of forfeiture before engaging on the merits (improper venue, arbitration clause, mediation agreement), —substantive defenses against the claim, —all facts from which you derive your demands, —evidence to establish each of those facts.
“God is always on the side of the big battalions,” the Vicomte de Turenne, Louis XIV’s greatest marshal, observed three centuries ago. In the order-for-payment proceeding, the bigger battalions are the better proofs. Assertions without evidence will not suffice.
Types of Defenses: Procedural and Substantive
Procedural defenses divide into two categories:
Defenses that must be raised immediately (on pain of forfeiture): —improper venue curable by agreement of the parties, —arbitration clause, —agreement excluding the jurisdiction of Polish courts, —mediation agreement, —improper determination of the amount in controversy.
Defenses that may be raised later: —inadmissibility of the judicial path, —res judicata, —lack of capacity to be a party or to sue.
Substantive defenses attack the very merits of the claim: —performance (you paid), —limitation, —invalidity of the obligation, —defects in a bill of exchange (formal invalidity, inauthenticity of signature, incompleteness), —defenses arising from the underlying relationship (when the order was issued on a guarantee bill), —set-off (subject to significant limitations).
The Defense of Set-Off: A Weapon of Limited Range
In the order-for-payment proceeding, the defense of set-off is subject to special constraints. You may raise it only if your claim against the plaintiff is proven by documents of the same evidentiary weight as those that formed the basis for issuance of the order—that is, documents enumerated in Article 485 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The exception: if the set-off occurred before service of the order and complaint upon you, this limitation does not apply. The Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation in a 2005 resolution.
“A weapon you cannot use is no weapon at all”—an old military maxim. A defense of set-off without the requisite documents is precisely such a useless weapon in the order-for-payment proceeding.
The Fee: Three-Quarters, Not Zero
Unlike the statement of opposition in the admonition proceeding, objections are subject to a fee. The fee amounts to three-quarters of the filing fee for the complaint. On a claim of two hundred thousand złoty, that means seventy-five hundred.
An exception for consumers: when the order has been issued against a consumer, the fee for objections may not exceed 750 złoty.
Objections not paid within the deadline set by the presiding judge are subject to dismissal. No funds for the fee? You may file a motion for exemption from court costs—but file it immediately, together with the objections.
Co-Defendants: Every Man for Himself
When the order has been issued against multiple joint and several debtors, each decides on his own defense independently. The Supreme Court settled the matter unequivocally in a 1966 resolution: the objections of one defendant do not justify examining the case on behalf of those who did not file objections.
“Allies who do not fight are a burden, not a support,” General George Patton observed. In the order-for-payment proceeding, the passivity of a co-defendant means that the order against him will become final, even if you prevail.
The exception: uniform indispensable joinder—when, by the nature of the legal relationship, the judgment must be identical for all.
The Judgment: Upholding or Vacating the Order
After examining the objections, the court renders a judgment in which it:
—upholds the payment order in full or in part—you lose; the order becomes an enforceable title, —vacates the payment order and dismisses the claim—you win, —vacates the payment order and awards the claim in a different amount—a partial victory or defeat.
If grounds exist for dismissing the complaint or discontinuing the proceeding, the court vacates the order ex officio and issues the appropriate ruling.
“Victory has a hundred fathers; defeat is an orphan,” John F. Kennedy remarked. In the order-for-payment proceeding, the debtor’s defeat means not only a lost case but also costs: the fee for objections, the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, and above all—enforcement of the principal with interest.
Motion to Stay Execution: A Temporary Shield
An order-for-payment is immediately enforceable as a security title. But in your objections you may file a motion to stay execution of the order pending resolution of the case. The court may grant it if it finds grounds to do so.
You may also move for limitation of the security—when the scope of the seizure is excessive in relation to the amount of the claim.
When Objections Make No Sense
Sometimes defense is futile. If:
—the debt is undisputed and you have no substantive defenses, —the documents forming the basis of the order are authentic and proper, —you have no evidence to support your assertions,
…then objections will only delay the inevitable and increase costs (the fee for objections, interest accruing during the litigation, the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees).
“There are victories that exhaust, and defeats that strengthen,” Montesquieu wrote. Sometimes a better strategy is negotiating a settlement or voluntary payment than a costly defense doomed to fail.
Objections to a payment order in the order-for-payment proceeding represent defense under difficult conditions—against documents of high evidentiary weight, with assets already at risk of seizure, with the burden of proof on your side. But difficult does not mean impossible. The key is precision, speed, and the proper selection of arguments.
Skarbiec Law Firm—defense against claims even in the most challenging circumstances.