Yes, you can take your flight compensation to court in Poland. The Polish prescription period for EU 261 claims is ten years under Article 118 of the Civil Code, confirmed by the Polish Supreme Court resolution III CZP 111/16 of 17 March 2017 and aligned with the CJEU ruling in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013) that left limitation periods to national law. Claims up to 20 000 PLN are pursued under the simplified procedure (postępowanie uproszczone) before Sąd Rejonowy — the local district court — with a court fee starting at 30 PLN and a sharply limited cost risk if you lose.
This page is written for the reader who has already tried the soft channels: you sent a written complaint to the airline and were refused, or you filed with the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) and either won on paper without payment or did not get satisfaction. What is left is court — and it is far less dramatic than most passengers expect. The simplified procedure was designed for private individuals without representation. You fill in a form, pay the fee, and the court guides you through the rest.
Set your expectations honestly. A Sąd Rejonowy case takes months, not days. The written exchange usually runs two to four months, an oral hearing (if needed) a few more, and judgment follows within weeks of the hearing. If your family claim runs above 20 000 PLN — a long-haul cancellation for four passengers can do that — you are no longer in the simplified track and the cost risk justifies thinking about a passenger-rights service.
Everything below is written for Polish forum and Polish procedural rules. The CJEU case law cited is binding across the Union; court fees, prescription and procedural details are specifically Polish.
The Route In — What You Need to Have Done First
Court is not the first step. Skipping straight to it gives you no procedural advantage and burns money for no reason. The honest order is:
- Written claim to the airline citing Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. Send by email and registered post; keep the proof of delivery. A template walkthrough is on our English claim guide .
- Complaint to the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów (RPP) at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego (ULC) — Poland's Civil Aviation Authority. The RPP reviews the dispute free of charge on the documents. Since 1 April 2019 the RPP issues binding mediation outcomes; if the airline refuses to settle or comply, the decision still carries evidential weight in court.
- Sąd Rejonowy — the district court — which is where this page picks up.
The RPP step is not a strict legal precondition to suing, but there are two good reasons to go via the RPP first. A decision in your favour shows that an independent state body has reviewed the case, which is a powerful document when you then sue an airline that has refused to comply. And it is free — the matter often resolves there without court at all.
If the airline has already stonewalled the RPP and you hold a decision in your favour, you are particularly well placed for court action. The merits have been examined and the reasoning can be quoted back at the airline in your pozew.
Which Court Track — Simplified Procedure or Ordinary Civil Case?
Polish civil procedure distinguishes two tracks for monetary claims, and the choice follows automatically from the value of the claim. EU 261 cases almost always fall into the first.
Postępowanie uproszczone (simplified procedure). Articles 505¹ to 505¹⁴ of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, KPC). Applies to monetary claims up to 20 000 PLN. Filed on a standard form (formularz urzędowy) before Sąd Rejonowy. The procedure is faster, the rules of evidence are more flexible, and oral hearings can be replaced by a documents-only decision in straightforward cases. This is the track Polish law has built for self-represented litigants.
Ordinary civil case. For claims above 20 000 PLN — a typical scenario only when several passengers on the same booking pursue a combined claim, or you add interest, damages for ancillary loss, and care-and-assistance costs on top of the Article 7 sum. The full KPC applies and the cost risk is real because the loser-pays rule under Article 98 KPC is unlimited.
For the ordinary EU 261 case — one or two passengers, 250 / 400 / 600 EUR per person, roughly 1 100 / 1 800 / 2 700 PLN in mid-2026 exchange — you land safely in the simplified track. The threshold is measured at the time of filing, on the principal sum claimed, excluding interest and legal costs.
A third option deserves a paragraph of its own: the European Order for Payment (EPO) under Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006. For cross-border claims — typically against a foreign EU carrier — you can file Form A directly with the competent Sąd Rejonowy. The court issues the order within roughly 30 days. The airline then has 30 days to object; if it does, the case converts to ordinary civil procedure. If it does not object, the order is automatically enforceable across the EU without exequatur. The EPO is the fastest, cleanest cross-border route when the airline has simply gone silent.
Court Fees, Cost Risk and Realistic Timeline
This is the part where fear of court takes over: what if I lose and have to pay the airline's expensive lawyer? The question is legitimate. The answer depends on the track.
Court fees under the Act on Court Fees in Civil Cases of 28 July 2005 (Article 28 — simplified procedure tariff):
- claim up to 4 000 PLN — 30 PLN
- claim 4 001 – 7 500 PLN — 100 PLN
- claim 7 501 – 10 000 PLN — 200 PLN
- claim 10 001 – 20 000 PLN — 400 PLN
If you win, the airline reimburses the court fee in full as part of the costs award.
Cost risk. In simplified procedure the recoverable representation costs are capped by the Minister of Justice ordinance on attorney fees. For a claim up to 1 500 PLN the cap is 270 PLN; up to 5 000 PLN it is 900 PLN; up to 10 000 PLN it is 1 800 PLN. Even on the worst day in court you are looking at a few hundred to under two thousand zlotys of exposure — not the runaway bill a German or Dutch ordinary-procedure case can produce. That cap is precisely what makes the simplified track rational for a 250 EUR claim.
In an ordinary civil case the unrestricted Article 98 KPC loser-pays rule applies in full. An airline that pulls a Warsaw law firm into a 30 000 PLN combined-family case you would otherwise have run informally can cost you the equivalent of 10 000–20 000 PLN if you lose. That is why large combined EU 261 claims are rarely pursued on your own.
Timeline. From pozew to judgment in a clean simplified case is six to twelve months. Written exchange runs two to four months. Any oral hearing adds another few months. Judgment lands within roughly eight weeks of the hearing. The EPO route, for undisputed cross-border claims, can deliver an enforceable order in around three months end to end.
A reassuring figure: the Polish prescription period for EU 261 is ten years from the day after the disrupted flight, under Article 118 of the Civil Code, confirmed by Supreme Court resolution III CZP 111/16 (2017). You have time to take the decision calmly — you do not have to rush to court the week after the RPP outcome.
What You Write in the Statement of Claim (Pozew)
A pozew in simplified procedure is submitted on the official form available on gov.pl and on the websites of individual district courts. Under Article 187 KPC it must contain the prayer for relief, the legal basis, the factual statement and the evidence. For an EU 261 case the skeleton is the same every time.
Claimant (Powód): Your name, PESEL number, address, phone, email.
Defendant (Pozwany): The airline's registered name, KRS or equivalent foreign register number, country of registration, address. For foreign carriers cite the address of the European registered office or representative in Poland.
Prayer for relief (Żądanie): "The claimant requests that the defendant be ordered to pay the claimant 250 / 400 / 600 EUR (corresponding to [PLN amount] at the National Bank of Poland exchange rate on the date of payment), together with statutory interest for delay under Article 481 of the Civil Code from [due date] until payment, and to reimburse the costs of proceedings including the court fee of 30 PLN."
Legal basis (Podstawa prawna): "The claim is based on the right to compensation under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004."
Facts (Stan faktyczny):
- Booked on flight [number] with the defendant on [date] from [airport, IATA] to [airport, IATA], booking reference [PNR].
- The flight was [delayed / cancelled / overbooked]; the claimant arrived at the final destination [X] hours and [Y] minutes after the scheduled arrival.
- The great-circle distance is [under 1 500 / 1 500–3 500 / over 3 500] km, entitling the passenger to compensation of [250 / 400 / 600] EUR under Article 7(1).
- The claimant sent a written claim on [date]. The defendant [refused on (date) / has not replied within a reasonable time].
- [If applicable] The matter was reviewed by the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów at the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego, reference [number], where the RPP found in the claimant's favour. The defendant has not complied.
- The right to compensation for long delay follows from the CJEU judgments in Sturgeon and Others (joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009); the treatment of connecting flights from Folkerts (C-11/11, 2013) and Wegener (C-537/17, 2018).
Evidence (Dowody): Booking confirmation (annex 1), boarding pass (annex 2), correspondence with the carrier (annex 3), RPP decision if any (annex 4), proof of arrival time at the final destination (annex 5).
The pozew is filed with the district court for the place where the defendant has its seat — but for foreign airlines the special jurisdiction rule of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (1215/2012) and the CJEU's ruling in Rehder (C-204/08, 2009) lets you sue at the Sąd Rejonowy for the airport of departure or arrival. In practice: WAW → Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli; KRK → Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa-Krowodrzy; GDN → Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ; KTW → Sąd Rejonowy w Katowicach; WRO → Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Fabrycznej. Check the local court's jurisdictional area before filing.
Evidence and the Hearing — What the Court Looks At
EU 261 cases are evidentially light. You show four things: (1) you were booked on the flight, (2) the flight was delayed, cancelled or overbooked, (3) the arrival delay at the final destination was three hours or longer, and (4) the great-circle distance places you in the correct Article 7 amount. Documentary evidence is enough; oral testimony rarely matters.
What the airline must show, if it wants to escape liability, is extraordinary circumstances under Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004, and that all reasonable measures were taken to avoid the disruption. The burden of proof lies on the carrier. You do not have to disprove a technical defect; the airline has to prove it qualifies.
Three points of EU case law to keep ready in the written exchange:
A connecting flight counts as one journey. Folkerts (C-11/11, 2013) held the arrival delay is measured at the final destination, even when the first leg was on time and the delay arose at the transfer. Wegener (C-537/17, 2018) confirmed and broadened this. Airlines repeatedly try to segment the trip in court — cite both cases together.
Long delay equals cancellation for compensation purposes. Sturgeon and Others (joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, 2009) put a three-hour-plus arrival delay on the same footing as cancellation under Article 7. This has been settled CJEU case law for fifteen years yet airlines still argue around it. Sturgeon is your answer.
Technical faults are rarely extraordinary. Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, 2008) and van der Lans (C-257/14, 2015) hold that technical problems arising in the normal course of flight operations are not extraordinary circumstances. A carrier relying on "technical fault" must show the defect lay outside normal operations — a high bar that boilerplate refusals routinely fail to clear.
The hearing itself, when one happens, is short and informal. You sit on one side, a representative for the airline on the other, the judge runs the conversation. You explain what happened, the airline responds, the judge asks targeted questions. No witness examination is typically needed.
When to Hand the Case to a Compensation Service Instead
Everything above you can do yourself. The honest question is when it makes sense to, and when it does not.
Run it yourself before Sąd Rejonowy if the case is clean and documented, the airline has already accepted the disruption and is only disputing the legal basis or relying on weak "extraordinary circumstances", you hold an RPP decision in your favour that the airline refuses to honour, the claim is below 20 000 PLN (simplified track, capped cost risk), and you have the time and patience for the written exchange and a possible hearing.
Hand it to a service if the claim is at or above 20 000 PLN (the cost risk in ordinary procedure is real), the carrier is fighting hard with a law firm and relying on precise CJEU arguments, you have already invested months and have no energy left for court on top, or the airline is foreign and service of process and cross-border procedure get tangled.
For a clean 250 / 400 / 600 EUR case with full documentation, the maths favours DIY: you pay 30 PLN, recover it on judgment, and keep the entire compensation. For a refused, complex, or non-EU-carrier case where the alternative is dropping it, a no-win-no-fee service captures money you would otherwise lose.
Check eligibility and let AirHelp handle the court process — free unless they win
Prescription Period — Ten Years, but Do Not Wait
Poland gives EU 261 claims one of the longest prescription windows in the Union. Article 118 of the Polish Civil Code sets the general civil prescription period at 6 years for ordinary claims and 3 years for claims connected with business activity — but the Polish Supreme Court resolution III CZP 111/16 of 17 March 2017 held that EU 261 compensation falls under the older 10-year rule applicable at the time the regulation entered into force, and that this longer period continues to apply to passenger claims. The CJEU itself left limitation to national law in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11, 2013), so the Polish 10-year window stands.
The clock runs from the day after the disrupted flight. Interruption rules under Articles 123–125 of the Civil Code apply — a written claim acknowledging the debt, or a formal court filing, restart the clock.
Practically: ten years is a safety margin, not a comfort margin. Evidence degrades over time; the carrier's flight-operations file from eight years ago will not be as complete as one from last month. And if the airline becomes insolvent before you act, the claim drops into the unsecured-creditor queue and is, in practice, worthless. Run the case while it is fresh and while the carrier is alive.
For deeper background in Polish, see our native Czy mogę pozwać linie lotnicze article and the English DIY guide .
This Is Not Legal Advice
<p class="seomatrix-disclaimer">
<em>This page is based on published primary sources — EUR-Lex Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 , the Court of Justice's published judgments, Polish statutes (Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Act on Court Fees in Civil Cases of 2005) and public information from Sąd Rejonowy and the Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego. Expert review by a practising Polish advocate has not been carried out. For advice on your individual case, contact the Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów at ULC, a consumer adviser (rzecznik konsumentów) at your municipality, or a licensed adwokat or radca prawny.</em>
</p>
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it cost to sue an airline for flight compensation in Poland?
In simplified procedure (postępowanie uproszczone) before Sąd Rejonowy the court fee is 30 PLN for claims up to 4 000 PLN, 100 PLN up to 7 500 PLN, 200 PLN up to 10 000 PLN and 400 PLN up to 20 000 PLN, under the Act on Court Fees in Civil Cases of 28 July 2005. If you win, the airline reimburses the fee. Recoverable representation costs are capped by ministerial ordinance — 270 PLN for claims up to 1 500 PLN, 900 PLN up to 5 000 PLN, 1 800 PLN up to 10 000 PLN. A standard 250 / 400 / 600 EUR EU 261 case lands almost always in the 30 PLN tier.
Can I lose money if I lose the case?
In simplified procedure the risk is small — your own 30 PLN court fee plus the ministerial cap on the airline's representation costs (a few hundred to under two thousand PLN). In an ordinary civil case the risk is real: the unlimited loser-pays rule of Article 98 KPC means you can be ordered to reimburse the airline's full legal costs, which on a Warsaw law firm rate can reach 10 000–20 000 PLN. This is precisely why EU 261 claims above 20 000 PLN are usually handed to a no-win-no-fee service rather than litigated alone.
How long does a Sąd Rejonowy case for flight compensation take?
Expect six to twelve months from pozew to judgment in simplified procedure. Written exchange takes two to four months, any oral hearing adds a few more, and judgment lands within roughly eight weeks of the hearing. The European Order for Payment, for undisputed cross-border claims, runs faster — typically around three months to an enforceable order. You have ample time: the Polish prescription period is ten years under Article 118 of the Civil Code, confirmed by Supreme Court resolution III CZP 111/16 (2017) and consistent with the CJEU's deference to national law in Cuadrench Moré (C-139/11).
Do I need a lawyer to file a flight compensation lawsuit in Poland?
No. The simplified procedure before Sąd Rejonowy was designed for self-represented litigants. You file the pozew on the standard form, pay the 30 PLN court fee, and the court runs the rest under its duty of procedural guidance. Most EU 261 cases settle after the airline receives the lawsuit because the legal grounds are clear. In ordinary procedure (claims above 20 000 PLN) representation is in practice necessary, which is one reason large combined family claims are often handed to a passenger-rights service.
Can I sue a foreign airline in a Polish court?
Yes. The CJEU ruled in Rehder (C-204/08, 2009) that an EU 261 passenger may sue at either the airport of departure or the airport of arrival. If your flight departed from or arrived at any Polish airport — WAW, KRK, GDN, KTW, WRO, POZ, RZE, LCJ, SZZ — you can file in the local Sąd Rejonowy against Lufthansa, KLM, Ryanair, Wizz Air or any other carrier, regardless of where the airline has its registered office. The Brussels I bis Regulation (1215/2012) confirms the jurisdiction. For undisputed cross-border claims the European Order for Payment under Regulation 1896/2006 is the fastest route.
What happens if the airline goes bankrupt before judgment?
The claim becomes an unsecured debt in the insolvency estate and in practice is usually worthless. This is not theoretical — Air Berlin (2017), Norwegian's restructuring (2020–2021) and Flybe (2023) all left unpaid EU 261 claims behind. It is one of the few situations where winning on the merits does not help. Do not sit out the ten-year prescription period if the carrier's financial position looks fragile — file early and convert the claim into a judgment while there is still a solvent counterparty.
What about jurisdiction if I bought the ticket from a foreign travel agency?
The carrier remains the defendant under EU 261, regardless of how you bought the ticket. The CJEU in Wirth (C-532/17, 2018) confirmed that the operating carrier — the airline that actually flew or should have flown the route — bears the EU 261 obligations, even on wet-lease arrangements. The travel agency is not the right defendant for compensation under Article 7; pursue it only for ancillary issues (refunds for unused services, agency errors).
Sources and Further Reading
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — in particular Article 5 (cancellations), Article 7 (right to compensation), Article 9 (right to care)
- EUR-Lex — Cuadrench Moré, C-139/11 — national limitation periods apply
- EUR-Lex — Sturgeon and Others, joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 — long delay equals cancellation for compensation
- EUR-Lex — Folkerts, C-11/11 — connecting flights as one journey
- EUR-Lex — Wegener, C-537/17 — connecting flights, confirmation
- EUR-Lex — Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07 and van der Lans, C-257/14 — technical faults rarely extraordinary
- EUR-Lex — Rehder, C-204/08 — choice of forum at airport of departure or arrival
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European Order for Payment
- Polish Supreme Court — resolution III CZP 111/16 (17 March 2017) — 10-year prescription for EU 261
- Kodeks postępowania cywilnego — Articles 505¹–505¹⁴ (postępowanie uproszczone), Article 187 (contents of the pozew), Article 98 (cost rule)
- Act on Court Fees in Civil Cases of 28 July 2005 — Article 28 (simplified procedure fee tariff)
- Urząd Lotnictwa Cywilnego — Rzecznik Praw Pasażerów — free pre-court review
For the Polish-language version, see Czy mogę pozwać linie lotnicze za odszkodowanie on Lotzwrot.
Last reviewed: June 2026. Court fees and procedural references current to the Polish statutes and Sąd Rejonowy public information as of mid-2026.