Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2023:43
Date: 2023-01-17
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Poland

Translation C-476/22 – 1 
Case C-476/22 
Request for a preliminary ruling  
Date lodged: 
15 July 2022 
Referring court: 
Sąd Rejonowy w Bydgoszczy (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
6 June 2022 
Applicant: 
D.-F. sp. z o.o. 
Defendant: 
D. L. 
  
[…] [case reference] 
ORDER 
6 June 2022 
The Sąd Rejonowy w Bydgoszczy XII Wydział Cywilny (District Court, 
Bydgoszcz, 12th Civil Chamber) […] [referring court address and fax 
number], composed of: 
President of the Sąd Rejonowy […] [judge’s full name] 
following the hearing on 6 June 2022 in Bydgoszcz 
in closed session 
of the case brought by the creditor D.-F., a limited liability company with its seat 
in 
(…) 
represented by […] [details of the party’s authorised representative] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 6. 6. 2022 – CASE C-476/22 
 
2  
against D. L. – […], Poland 
for enforcement of payment, 
orders 
that the following questions be referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling: 
Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the principles of the 
rule of law and equality before the law be interpreted as meaning that it is 
permissible to introduce into the national legal order provisions on enforcement 
proceedings which concern cases that have been initiated but not concluded, 
which provisions involve the imposition of fiscal obligations on the entities 
initiating such proceedings that those entities could not have foreseen at the time 
when the enforcement proceedings were initiated? 
Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the principles of the 
rule of law and equality before the law be interpreted as meaning that it is 
permissible to introduce into the national legal order provisions on fees in 
enforcement proceedings which provisions differentiate between the entities 
involved in the proceedings and allow enforcement fees to be charged to a 
secondary creditor depending on whether the application for the proceedings to be 
initiated was lodged by the original creditor, or whether the proceedings were 
initiated at the request of the secondary creditor (which acquired the claim from 
the original creditor)? 
Judge of the Sąd Rejonowy […] [judge’s full name] 
Grounds 
Facts 
1. The secondary creditor (D.-F. sp. z o.o.) acquired a claim originally due to 
the insurance company C. Spółka Akcyjna [C. joint-stock company] […] 
with its seat in W. (the original creditor) under an insurance contract 
concluded with D. L. (the debtor). The assignment agreement was concluded 
on 30 September 2015. 
2. On the basis of the aforementioned [assignment] agreement, the creditor 
(D.-F. sp. z o.o.) brought an action against the debtor before the District 
Court, and subsequently, on the basis of the enforceable instrument obtained 
in the form of an order for payment issued in writ-of-payment proceedings 
by the Sąd Rejonowy (District Court) Lublin Zachód in Lublin on 
20 February 2017 and with an enforcement clause affixed to it by order of 
that court of 14 June 2017 in case […] [case reference], the creditor applied 
to the bailiff at the District Court in Bydgoszcz to initiate enforcement 
D.-F. 
 
3 
proceedings in order to obtain by way of enforcement the amounts awarded 
to it in the said order for payment. The application to initiate enforcement 
proceedings was lodged on 10 August 2017. 
3. By order dated 29 September 2020 relating to the enforcement proceedings 
conducted on the basis of the creditor’s application […] [case reference], the 
bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings pursuant to 
Article 824(1)(3) of the Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego (Code of Civil 
Procedure), as enforcement was unsuccessful. At the same time, the bailiff 
determined the costs of the enforcement proceedings, including a fee under 
Article 29(4) of the Ustawa z dnia 28 lutego 2018 r. o kosztach 
komorniczych (Law of 28 February 2018 on Bailiffs’ Fees, Dziennik Ustaw 
(Journal of Laws) of 2018, item 770), which was charged to the creditor. 
4. The creditor brought an action against the bailiff’s order, indicating that the 
decision on costs (charging the enforcement fee to the creditor) under 
Article 29(4) read in conjunction with Article 29(5)(b) of the Law on 
Bailiffs’ Fees infringed the principle of equality before the law and the 
principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on 
European Union. According to the applicant, the legislature infringed the lex 
retro non agit principle by introducing provisions that allow a bailiff to 
impose a fee on secondary creditors, which fee the creditor could not have 
foreseen when initiating enforcement proceedings. Additionally, according 
to the creditor, the legislature infringed the principle of equality before the 
law by introducing provisions that allow an enforcement fee to be imposed 
on secondary creditors, while exempting primary creditors from that fee, 
depending on which creditor initiated the enforcement proceedings. 
5. By order dated 29 April 2021, a senior judicial clerk at the District Court in 
Bydgoszcz dismissed the action against the bailiff’s order, indicating that the 
bailiff had correctly determined the enforcement fee and charged it to the 
creditor. This follows from the provisions of the Law of 28 February 2018 
on Bailiffs’ Fees (Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2018, item 770, as 
amended). Pursuant to Article 52(1) and (2) of that Law, its new provisions, 
namely Articles 29 and 30, apply to cases initiated but not concluded before 
the entry into force of the Law ([…] 1 January 2019). As the bailiff found 
that the enforcement proceedings had been unsuccessful, the proceedings 
should have been discontinued and the enforcement fee should have been 
charged to the creditor, as a secondary creditor, pursuant to Article 29(4) of 
the Law on Bailiffs’ Fees. 
6. The creditor appealed against the order of 29 April 2021 of the senior 
judicial clerk at the District Court in Bydgoszcz, lodging an appeal against 
that order with the District Court in Bydgoszcz. In the appeal, the applicant 
once again alleged the unconstitutionality of the provisions in question and 
the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination enshrined […] in 
Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. The creditor […] requested that 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 6. 6. 2022 – CASE C-476/22 
 
4  
the order be set aside and […] that the referring court refer a question for a 
preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to 
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
In view of the request made in the creditor’s appeal that the referring court submit 
a question concerning the interpretation of Article 2 of the Treaty on European 
Union […] to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that question should be 
referred to the Court of Justice as the body having exclusive jurisdiction in that 
regard. 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union: 
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, 
democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the 
rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the 
Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, 
justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Article 52(1) and (2) of the Law of 28 February 2018 […] on Bailiffs’ Fees 
(Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2018, item 770) 
1. The provisions applicable hitherto shall apply to proceedings instituted and not 
concluded before the date of entry into force of this Law. 
2. The provisions of Article 29 and Article 30 shall apply to the proceedings 
referred to in paragraph 1 from the date of entry into force of this Law. 
Article 29 of the Law on Bailiffs’ Fees, with particular reference to paragraphs 4 
and 5: 
1. In the event of enforcement proceedings being discontinued at the creditor’s 
request or pursuant to Article 824(1)(4) of the Law of 17 November 1964 – the 
Code of Civil Procedure, the creditor shall be charged a proportional fee in the 
amount of 5% of the remaining amount to be enforced. However, if the creditor 
demonstrates that the reason for the discontinuation of enforcement proceedings 
is related to the debtor paying the amount due within one month from the date of 
service on the debtor of the notice of commencement of enforcement or to the 
conclusion of an arrangement between the creditor and the debtor on the manner 
or timing of the payment of the amount due within that period, this fee shall be 
charged to the debtor. If the payment of the amount due or the conclusion of the 
arrangement with the creditor occurred more than one month from the date of 
D.-F. 
 
5 
service on the debtor of the notice of commencement of enforcement, a fee in the 
amount of 10% of the remaining amount to be enforced shall be charged to the 
debtor. 
2. If the creditor’s application referred to in paragraph 1 is submitted before 
the service on the debtor of the notice of commencement of enforcement, the fee 
shall be PLN 100. 
3. In cases concerning the enforcement of recurring payments, in the event of 
enforcement proceedings being discontinued at the creditor’s request or pursuant 
to Article 824(1)(4) of the Law of 17 November 1964 – the Code of Civil 
Procedure, the debtor shall be charged a proportional fee in the amount of 5% of 
the remaining amount to be enforced. 
4. In the event of enforcement proceedings being discontinued for reasons 
other than those indicated in paragraph 1, the bailiff shall charge to the creditor a 
fee of PLN 150, except in the cases referred to in Article 30. The fee shall be 
reduced by the amount of enforcement fees collected and charged to the debtor. 
5. The fee referred to in paragraph 4 shall not be charged: 
(1) to individuals pursuing employment or compensation claims; 
(2) to local government units; 
(3) to entities whose business: 
(a) is not a financial and insurance business within the meaning of the regulations 
issued pursuant to Article 40(2) of the Ustawa z dnia 29 czerwca 1995 r. o 
statystyce publicznej (Law of 29 June 1995 on Public Statistics, Dziennik Ustaw 
(Journal of Laws) of 2020, items 443 and 1486); or 
(b) is a financial and insurance business within the meaning of the regulations 
issued pursuant to Article 40(2) of the Law of 29 June 1995 on Public Statistics, 
provided that they are original creditors and the claim was not traded – on 
condition that enforcement proceedings were initiated before two years had 
elapsed from the date of the enforceable instrument covering the claim in 
question. 
6. The first sentence of paragraph 1 shall not apply to a creditor that is a local 
government unit. 
7. In order to collect the fees referred to in paragraphs 1–4, the bailiff shall 
issue an order. 
I. In the view of the District Court, the correct interpretation of Article 2 of the 
Treaty on European Union does not prevent the national legislature from adopting 
provisions under which the legal situation of parties to enforcement proceedings 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 6. 6. 2022 – CASE C-476/22 
 
6  
varies depending […] on whether they are original or secondary creditors. The 
foregoing does not amount to discrimination against a party. Its purpose is to 
protect the weaker parties to such proceedings, who are generally debtors, as well 
as to ensure the stability of the financial and banking system. 
In the Law of 28 February 2018 on Bailiffs’ Fees […], which came into force on 
1 January 2019, the Polish legislature introduced the principle that, in the event of 
enforcement proceedings being discontinued […] due to, inter alia, the 
proceedings being unsuccessful, the enforcement fee is to be borne by the creditor 
initiating the proceedings, but only where that creditor is a secondary creditor 
(who acquired the claim). Such fees will not be borne by the original creditors 
[…] if the proceedings were initiated at their request. Article 52 of the 
aforementioned Law stipulates that those fees may be charged to creditors where 
the case brought by them has not been concluded prior to the entry into force of 
the Law, namely 1 January 2019. 
As rightly noted by the District Court in Opole Lubelskie in its order of 
20 January 2020, Case Ref. No I Co 518/19, issued in a case with similar facts: 
‘Therefore, the condition relating to the status of the original creditor cannot be 
understood literally and narrowly. Rather, the actual meaning of that concept is 
indicated by the clear purpose of the legislature. 
Shaping the conduct of parties to legal and economic transactions through fiscal 
instruments (especially taxation, though not exclusively) is a widely used and 
generally acceptable instrument of state policy. In the discussed Article 29 of the 
Law on Bailiffs’ Fees, the legislature – by way of exception – introduced 
preferential rules with respect to the enforcement of certain types of claims by 
individuals (employment and compensation claims), local government units and 
entities engaged in business activities other than financial and insurance 
activities. The exemption also covers entities engaged in financial and insurance 
activities, but only with respect to their “own” claims. The reasons appear quite 
obvious, since the liquidity of banks and insurers is crucial to the functioning of 
the entire financial market, as reflected in a number of legal solutions designed to 
guarantee that liquidity. 
The same importance cannot be attributed to the claims of entities that participate 
as purchasers in large-scale debt trading, and often in the trading of so-called 
bad debts. On the contrary, as is well known, such claims place a significant 
burden on the entire enforcement system to the detriment of other categories of 
creditors. 
The explanatory memorandum to the bill (parliamentary document No 1581, 8th 
parliamentary term) states that the shifting of the enforcement fee from the debtor 
to the creditor in certain cases is due to the fact that the previous arrangement 
“was frequently used to harass debtors and generate additional costs and, as a 
result, led to the uncontrolled expansion of the debt-trading market”. 
D.-F. 
 
7 
In the light of the foregoing, the objective of the legislature is clear: to make 
large-scale debt trading less attractive, and thereby reduce the burden that such 
trading places on both the enforcement system and on the judiciary’. 
This matter was also addressed by the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland). 
Section II of the Resolution of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, Case Ref. 
No CZP 35/22 of 28 January 2022, states: ‘Debt collection firms that seek to 
enforce claims acquired by way of assignment must expect to pay the bailiff a fee 
of PLN 150 if the enforcement proceedings are discontinued’. 
It is clear from the foregoing that the introduced legislative solutions, which are 
aimed at charging enforcement fees to the creditor in the event of discontinuation 
of unsuccessful enforcement proceedings, depending on whether it is the original 
or a secondary creditor that initiated the proceedings, are allowed and approved of 
in the case-law. 
The introduction in Article 52 of the Law on Bailiffs’ Fees of transitional 
provisions which allow the application of Article 29 of the aforementioned Law to 
proceedings initiated before its entry into force, that is to say, before 1 January 
2019, should also be considered legitimate, and thus as not contrary to the lex 
retro non agit principle. There is no basis for treating secondary creditors 
(purchasers of claims) differently on the basis of the date on which their 
applications to initiate enforcement proceedings were submitted: that is to say, 
before or after 1 January 2019. As indicated […], this is due to the need to protect 
debtors from potential multiple changes of creditor and from the cascading of 
enforcement proceedings by subsequent creditors, which would place ever-
increasing burdens on the debtor. 
The vacatio legis of the provisions introduced in the Law of 28 February 2018 is 
also significant. It amounted to 10 months, which, in the opinion of the referring 
court, gave creditors sufficient time to take the necessary actions in the course of 
proceedings in order to continue those proceedings or to terminate them before the 
entry into force of the aforementioned Law. 
Under such circumstances, it would be difficult to accept that the parties to legal 
and economic transactions were surprised by the legislative solutions adopted. 
II. The interpretation of the aforementioned provision of the Treaty [on 
European Union] is of vital importance for the resolution of the action brought by 
the limited-liability company D.-F., since it affects the assessment as to whether a 
secondary creditor is the subject of discrimination within the meaning of Article 2 
of the Treaty and whether it is reasonable to charge to such a creditor the costs of 
enforcement proceedings in the cases provided for in national law.