The Act of 5 August 2025 amending the Code of Civil Procedure, the Civil Code, and certain other acts¹ (hereinafter the “CCP Amendment”) introduced a number of significant changes to civil procedure, some of which have already come into force whilst others will do so in the coming months. Among the noteworthy innovations introduced by the CCP Amendment is the modification of the provisions governing direct mutual service of copies of procedural documents between professional representatives, and the obligations associated with such service.

The substantive changes in this area came into force on 1 March 2026 (pursuant to Article 16 of the CCP Amendment) and cover three matters:

• the removal of the requirement to include in a document subject to the obligation of direct mutual service between representatives a declaration confirming that a copy of the document has been served on the other party or dispatched via an operator referred to in Article 165 § 2 of the CCP (and consequently the removal of the sanction of return of the document where such a declaration is absent);
• the clarification of the scope of exceptions to the principle of direct mutual service of copies of procedural documents between professional representatives;
• the introduction of direct mutual service via the court information portal between professional representatives.

Removal of the Requirement to Include a Declaration of Service or Dispatch in a Document

With effect from 1 March 2026:

• the obligation for advocates, legal counsels, patent attorneys, and the General Counsel to the Republic of Poland to serve copies of procedural documents directly on one another in the course of proceedings is maintained;
• the requirement to include in the document a declaration confirming compliance with the above obligation, as a means of verifying its fulfilment, is abolished.

As set out in the explanatory memorandum to the CCP Amendment, the existing provision was considered excessively “rigorous and formalistic”, and the sanction of return of the document in the absence of the requisite declaration was deemed “disproportionate”.²

Under the new legal framework, the guarantee that direct mutual service between professional representatives has been effected will lie in the court’s ability to demand proof of service or dispatch of a copy of the document where doubt arises as to whether the obligation has been fulfilled by the representative. Such a demand may be made by the court of its own motion or upon application. Only a failure to produce the relevant proof within the prescribed time limit will then trigger the sanction of return of the document.

In explaining the ratio legis of this change, the explanatory memorandum to the CCP Amendment stated that “the institution of direct service effected mutually by qualified representatives has become so firmly embedded in practice that it may be assumed the obligation arising from Article 132 § 1 will be fulfilled without any need to include an additional declaration in the document confirming that it has been complied with. On the other hand, even the act of making the declaration currently required cannot be equated with certainty that the obligation of direct service has in fact been performed; in practice, the declarations in question are frequently included in a mechanical manner, and their divergence from the actual state of affairs may result from a simple error. At the same time, the absence of the requisite declaration does not in itself mean that direct service has not been effected.”³

Clarification of the Scope of Exceptions to the Principle of Direct Mutual Service

The second of the changes referred to above concerns Article 132 § 1¹ of the CCP, which sets out the catalogue of procedural documents not subject to the obligation of direct mutual service. In its wording applicable from 1 March 2026, this provision will, in addition to the documents already enumerated therein, expressly identify the following as documents which representatives are not required to serve directly on one another:

• third-party intervention;
• amendment of a claim; and
• a plea of set-off.

This change is largely of a clarificatory and consolidating nature,⁴ given that legal scholarship had already expressed the view, under the existing provisions, that the documents listed above fall outside the scope of Article 132 § 1 of the CCP,⁵ a position confirmed with regard to the extension of a claim by a resolution of the Supreme Court (sitting in a panel of seven judges) of 11 December 2018.⁶ The expansive interpretation of § 1¹ could, however, give rise to certain doubts in view of its character as an exception,⁷ and for this reason a clear legislative position appears justified. Controversy may nonetheless continue to arise, for example where a plea of set-off (which will not be subject to direct mutual service) is raised in a statement of defence (which will be subject to such service).

In addition to the amendment of Article 132 § 1¹ of the CCP, the scope of direct mutual service will also be affected by the addition of § 5¹ to Article 767 of the CCP and a second sentence to Article 1027 § 2 of the CCP. These added provisions (likewise coming into force on 1 March 2026) will confirm that Article 132 § 1 of the CCP (establishing the principle of direct mutual service) will not apply to:

• a complaint against the acts of a bailiff; and
• objections to a plan for the distribution of the sum obtained from enforcement against real property.

Direct Mutual Service via the Court Information Portal

The final significant category of changes to direct mutual service consists of new provisions enabling such service to be effected via the court information portal.

Pursuant to the new § 1⁴ added to Article 132 of the CCP, lodging a procedural document with the court via the court information portal and obtaining confirmation of its transmission to the other party will be treated as equivalent to fulfilment of the obligation of direct mutual service. Article 132 § 1⁵ of the CCP provides, in turn, that copies of documents lodged with the court by means other than the information portal may also be served directly on the other party’s representative via the information portal, in a manner enabling the lodging party to obtain confirmation of their transmission to the other party. As set out in § 1⁶ of that article, where doubt arises as to whether a procedural document has been transmitted to the other party via the information portal, the court may — on application or of its own motion — demand proof of such transmission. If proof of transmission of the procedural document to the other party is not produced within the prescribed time limit, the document will be subject to return.

Under the new legal framework, there will therefore be four categories of procedural documents:

• documents that may (or must) be lodged via the information portal, where lodging in this manner and obtaining the relevant confirmation of transmission to the other party is treated as equivalent to fulfilment of the obligation of direct mutual service (e.g. procedural documents in proceedings arising from the lodging of an appeal, an interlocutory appeal, or a complaint against a ruling of a court referendary);
• documents that may (or must) be lodged via the information portal, but which are not subject to direct mutual service (e.g. an appeal);
• documents that may not be lodged via the information portal, but whose copies may be served on the other party’s representative via that portal (thereby fulfilling the obligation of direct mutual service) (e.g. a statement of defence);
• documents that may not be lodged via the information portal and which are, at the same time, not subject to direct mutual service (e.g. an application for an interim measure).

The changes being introduced are therefore broad in scope and of considerable practical significance. They are aimed at making the process of direct mutual service between professional representatives more flexible and more digital, as well as at clarifying the regulatory framework in the light of uncertainties that have arisen. The manner in which these changes will be applied will ultimately be settled by the case law, but it is certainly worth preparing for the new rules in this area now.nie zweryfikowany przez orzecznictwo, ale z pewnością warto już teraz przygotować się do nowych zasad w tym obszarze.

^[1] Act of 5 August 2025 amending the Code of Civil Procedure, the Civil Code, and certain other acts (Journal of Laws of 2025, item 1172).

^[2] Explanatory memorandum to the CCP Amendment.

^[3] Explanatory memorandum to the CCP Amendment.

^[4] Cf. explanatory memorandum to the CCP Amendment.

^[5] See, for example, D. Markiewicz, commentary on Article 132 of the CCP in: Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Art. 1–458¹⁶. Tom I, ed. T. Szanciło, 2023, SIP Legalis.

^[6] Resolution of the Supreme Court (panel of seven judges) of 11 December 2018, III CZP 31/18, OSNC 2019, no. 4, item 35.

^[7] Cf. I. Wolwiak, commentary on Article 132 of the CCP in: Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, ed. P. Rylski, A. Olaś, 2025, SIP Legalis.