No possibility of debt recovery from the bankrupt entity’s assets where the creditors could not have known of a motion for bankruptcy received by the court SK 51/20
Ref. No. SK 51/20
JUDGMENT
IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND
Warsaw, 8 October 2025
The Constitutional Tribunal, composed of:
Andrzej Zielonacki – Presiding Judge
Bartłomiej Sochański – Judge Rapporteur,
Jakub Stelina
Rafał Wojciechowski
Jarosław Wyrembak,
having considered, at a sitting in camera on 8 October 2025 – in accordance with Article 92(1)(1) of the Act of 30 November 2016 on the Organisation of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Mode of Proceedings Before the Constitutional Tribunal (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2019, item 2393) – the constitutional complaint of the companies […], lodged with the Constitutional Tribunal for it to consider the conformity of:
1. Article 240(2) and (3) of the Bankruptcy Act of 28 February 2003 (Journal of Laws – Dz. U., No. 60, item 535, as amended), in the version that was binding prior to 1 January 2016, in conjunction with Article 449 of the Restructuring Act of 15 May 2015 (Journal of Laws – Dz. U., item 978, as amended) – insofar as the challenged regulations of Article 240(2) and (3) of the Bankruptcy Act are applicable to court proceedings in which, before 1 January 2016, a motion for bankruptcy was filed, including the situation where the party filing a debt claim could not have found out the date when the motion for bankruptcy was received by the competent court, as well as the said regulations do not indicate the types of documents that the creditor should present as evidence and do not specify the manner in which the creditor should formulate his/her debt claim – to Article 77(2) as well as Article 45(1) in conjunction with Article 31(3), Article 32(1) and Article 2, and also Article 64(1) and (2) as well as Article 21(1) in conjunction with Article 31(3) as well as Article 32(1) of the Constitution;
2. Article 240(2) and (3) of the Bankruptcy Act, in the version that was binding prior to 1 January 2016 – insofar as the challenged regulations are applicable to court proceedings in which, before 1 January 2016, a motion for bankruptcy was filed, including the situation where the party filing a debt claim could not have found out the date when the motion for bankruptcy was received by the competent court, as well as the said regulations do not indicate the types of documents that the creditor should present as evidence and do not specify the manner in which the creditor should formulate his/her debt claim – to Article 77(2) as well as Article 45(1) in conjunction with Article 31(3), Article 32(1) and Article 2, and also Article 64(1) and (2) as well as Article 21(1) in conjunction with Article 31(3) as well as Article 32(1) of the Constitution;
3. Article 242 of the Bankruptcy Act, in the version that was binding prior to 1 January 2016 – insofar as the challenged regulation provides for no obligation to call on a creditor represented by a professional legal counsel[1] to correct formal defects in the creditor’s debt claim before the claim is rejected – to Article 77(2), Article 45(1) in conjunction with Article 31(3), Article 32(1) and Article 2, and also Article 64(1) and (2) as well as Article 21(1) in conjunction with Article 31(3) as well as Article 32(1) of the Constitution,
adjudicates as follows:
Article 242 of the Bankruptcy Act of 28 February 2003 (Journal of Laws – Dz. U. of 2025, item 614, as amended), in the version that was binding prior to 1 January 2016 – insofar as the said challenged regulation provides for no obligation to call on a creditor represented by a professional legal counsel to correct formal defects in the creditor’s debt claim before the claim is rejected – is consistent with Article 77(2) and Article 45(1) in conjunction with Article 32(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
Moreover, the Tribunal decides:
to discontinue the proceedings as to the remainder.
The ruling was adopted by a majority vote.
Andrzej Zielonacki (dissenting opinion)
Bartłomiej Sochański
Jakub Stelina
Rafał Wojciechowski
Jarosław Wyrembak
[1] Under Polish law, both advocates (Pl. adwokat) and legal advisers (Pl. radca prawny) make up the category of attorneys (attorneys-at-law), admitted to the Bar, and fully qualified to provide professional legal representation; the main difference between the first and the latter is the range of contracts on the basis of which they are permitted by law to provide their legal services.