A Kafkaesque judgment. Case I C 1671/22 — appeal rejected without my knowledge, the bailiff is already collecting money

dr Witold Kilarski · Kraków, 18 May 2026

On 18 May 2026 I received from the Court Bailiff attached to Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa‑Krowodrzy (District Court for Kraków-Krowodrza), Krzysztof Przybyła (Bailiff's Office No. XVIII in Kraków, case ref. Km 834/26), a full set of documents concerning the enforcement proceedings conducted against me. It was only from those documents that I learned that Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie (Kraków Court of Appeal), by a ruling of 28 February 2026 (ref. I ACa 3378/25), had rejected my appeal against the judgment of Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie (Kraków Regional Court) of 15 November 2024 (ref. I C 1671/22). The ruling was to become final on 17 March 2026, and on 29 April 2026 it was declared enforceable — all of this without any written communication from the court to me.

What I knew and what I did not know

Clarification: I participated in the first-instance proceedings before Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie (judge Anna Chmielarz) and I am familiar with the judgment of 15 November 2024. The appeal against that judgment was filed by my then-legal counsel, advocate Wojciech Zięba. The ordeal began at second instance.

I submitted my own supplement to the appeal — through two channels, within the deadline. No longer trusting advocate Zięba at that point, I independently prepared a supplement to the appeal and dispatched it in January 2026: (1) through my legal counsel and, simultaneously, (2) by registered post at the post office, one hour before the deadline — I have the proof-of-dispatch receipts. I was therefore an active party who had just filed an extensive pleading in the case — and yet the Court of Appeal notified me neither of the hearing date, nor of the composition of the panel, nor of the outcome.

I was actively awaiting the resolution of the appeal. The appeal had been filed, my own supplement had reached the case file, the proceedings were ongoing, and I — as a party — was expecting either the scheduling of an oral hearing or at least notification of the procedural course. I learned that Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie had decided the case as early as 28 February 2026 — I repeat — only on 18 May 2026, from the bailiff.

I never received — either personally or through my counsel — any document from the Court of Appeal, including:

notification that the case had been registered at second instance;
any summons or notification of the hearing on 28 February 2026;
a copy of the Court of Appeal's ruling of 28 February 2026 dismissing the appeal — with the statement of reasons;
notification of the ruling becoming final (17 March 2026) or of the declaration of enforceability (29 April 2026).

Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie adjudicated at a closed hearing, in a composition and by a procedure of which I was in no way notified — even though I was a party awaiting a decision. Nearly three months after the ruling was issued and nearly two months after the declaration of enforceability — I, a party to the proceedings, still did not know that the second instance had concluded at all. The first indication of this decision's existence turned out to be the bailiff's seizure of my accounts.

What the bailiff has already done

The bailiff commenced enforcement proceedings against me for the sum of 18 187,48 zł (principal 11 077,49 zł + interest 2 037,56 zł + court costs 2 594,51 zł + enforcement fee 1 571,00 zł + costs of legal representation 900,00 zł + expenses 6,92 zł), plus further accruing interest of 3,45 zł per day. He effected the seizure of:

bank accounts (including at mBank S.A.);
receivables from the Urząd Skarbowy (Tax Office) (VAT refunds and overpayments);
he also summoned me to submit a declaration of assets pursuant to art. 801 k.p.c. (Polish Code of Civil Procedure).

Money is being seized from my accounts without my prior knowledge of the judgment that constitutes the enforcement title.

What the Regional Court ordered (in proceedings I was unaware of)

The judgment of Sąd Okręgowy w Krakowie of 15 November 2024 (judge Anna Chmielarz) — issued at a closed hearing — orders me, inter alia, to:

publish apology statements addressed to the claimant in the journal „Forum Akademickie" (pages 1–10, minimum size 1/4 of a page, in a black border 20×25 cm, Times New Roman size 20);
send apology e‑mails to eight specified addresses (including Narodowe Centrum Nauki (National Science Centre), Kraków Prosecutor's Office, editorial offices);
publish statements on my Facebook profiles;
pay 10 000 zł in moral damages, 5 000 zł to a public cause (Fundacja na rzecz Nauki Polskiej (Foundation for Polish Science)), 1 077,49 zł in compensation, 2 594,51 zł in procedural costs, and 471,70 zł to the State Treasury.

The judgment thus imposes severe financial sanctions and deeply interferes with my freedom of expression — while simultaneously depriving me of any elementary means of defence.

Legal response

On 18 May 2026, immediately upon receiving the bailiff's documents, I filed a full set of procedural motions:

Motion for service of the Regional Court judgment of 15.11.2024 and the Court of Appeal ruling of 28.02.2026, together with their statements of reasons.
Motion for reinstatement of the time limit to file a complaint (art. 168 k.p.c. — Polish Code of Civil Procedure), together with the complaint against the Court of Appeal's ruling dismissing the appeal — alleging invalidity of the proceedings at both instances (art. 379 pt 5 k.p.c. — deprivation of a party's right to defend its interests).
Motion for appointment of court-assigned counsel (art. 117 k.p.c.) — due to the mandatory legal representation requirement in cassation proceedings (art. 87¹ k.p.c.) and the inability to finance privately chosen counsel — together with a motion for exemption from court costs (art. 102 u.k.s.c. — Act on Court Costs in Civil Cases).
Motion for stay of enforcement of the enforcement title (art. 396 k.p.c.) — to halt the enforcement until the complaint is examined.
Complaint against the bailiff's actions (art. 767 k.p.c.) — seeking suspension of the enforcement proceedings, restitution of amounts already collected, and reduction of enforcement fees.

Why I am writing about this

This case is not unique. The practice of issuing civil judgments at closed hearings, combined with an unreliable postal service system and the fiction of service (art. 139 k.p.c.), leads to situations in which a citizen learns of a lost case only from the bailiff — at a point where there are no longer any easy avenues of defence. My case is a textbook example of Kafkaesque process: K. was never summoned, never heard, yet the judgment was handed down and executes itself.

I am documenting this case publicly because I believe that a citizen has the right to know that their case is being heard before the state begins seizing money from their account. The right to a fair trial (art. 45 para. 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, art. 6 ECHR) is, above all, the right to know that one is a party to proceedings.

Next steps

I am awaiting service of the statements of reasons for both rulings.
Upon appointment of court-assigned counsel — preparation of a cassation complaint (art. 398¹ k.p.c.) and/or an application to reopen the proceedings (art. 401 pt 2 k.p.c.).
I will document every subsequent stage.

All bailiff documents on which this account is based are contained in the case file Km 834/26 and in my private archive.