There are no civil protection orders per se. However, there are instruments that serve a similar function, particularly the following:

1. protection of personal interests
2. ordering the abuser to move out of the accommodation

In addition, a claimant may also file for an injunction (a temporary measure) to protect their interests.

In essence, those instruments can be described as follows:

1. Protection of personal interests

Personal interests include such values as health, bodily integrity, freedom, etc. Human dignity is at the center of each and every personal interest. Acts of domestic violence may constitute infringements of personal interests (such as health, bodily integrity, dignity, etc.). A victim of domestic violence (or even a potential victim, i.e., a person who is threatened by another person's action) may demand that such (threatening) actions be ceased.

Under the Civil Code, any person whose personal interests are threatened by another person's actions may demand the following:

• that the actions be ceased unless they are not unlawful
• that the person committing the infringement perform the actions necessary to remove its effects
• monetary recompense or an appropriate amount of money be paid to a specific public cause

If, as a result of infringement of a personal interest, financial damage is caused, the aggrieved party may demand that the damage be remedied in accordance with general principles. The above provisions do not prejudice any rights provided by other regulations.

2. Ordering the abuser to move out of the accommodation

There are three provisions that refer to ordering the abuser to move out of the shared accommodation.

The first refers to accommodation shared by spouses who are getting divorced. When ruling on divorce, the court may order, based on the request of the other spouse, the eviction of the spouse who has engaged in grossly reprehensible conduct (such as domestic violence). The court may also decide upon the use of the shared accommodation by the divorcees (e.g., order that one spouse may not use a part the accommodation occupied by the other spouse). The Family and Guardianship Code regulate this order.

The second provision is quite similar but it has a broader scope because it refers both to spouses getting divorced and to co-tenants in general. A co-tenant refers to a person who uses the accommodation based on a title other than ownership. Hence, if the court does not rule on eviction upon divorce, the abused divorcee may still request eviction based on this provision. The court will order the eviction of a co-tenant if their grossly reprehensible behavior makes cohabitation impossible (domestic violence being the primary example of such behavior). This order is regulated by the Act on Tenants' Rights.

The third provision is enshrined in the DV Act, which explicitly tackles domestic violence within a family. It states that the court may order the violent family member to leave the shared accommodation if their behavior makes sharing accommodation with them particularly burdensome. The actions of the abuser do not have to constitute a crime. Such an order is made upon the request of a family member affected by violence. Violence is defined very broadly for the purposes of this provision, including both its physical and nonphysical aspects. The term "family member" has a broad meaning as well and covers partners (i.e., a relationship outside of marriage) and any other person who is sharing the accommodation or running a household with the abuser.

The proceedings under the DV Act should commence within a month from the day of filing a respective motion by the victim (usually no such time limits are set). As soon as the court issues the respective court order, an assigned enforcement officer subject to the applicable Polish enforcement provisions will conduct an enforcement eviction. If the offender does not hold any legal title to another unit or premises in which they could reside, the municipality indicates the temporary premises where the abuser can reside; however, for no longer than six months.

3. Injunction

The purpose of an injunction (also referred to as "security measure") is to temporarily protect the interests of the parties involved in civil court proceedings. An injunction is an order by a court to one or more of the parties that compels them to do or refrain from specific acts. The claimant may demand an injunction prior to the initiation or in the course of proceedings. The court may grant an injunction when it considers it appropriate in the circumstances, for example, it may decide on the custody of minors and contact with a child.

With respect to monetary claims, however, there is an exclusive statutory list of what the court may order as an injunction. Therefore, if a domestic violence victim is seeking compensation, the court may secure their monetary claim by means of, for example, an attachment of the abuser's movable property, remuneration for work or money in a bank account.

A petition for an injunction/security measure is heard immediately, though no later than one week from the day on which the petition is filed with the court. If the court issues an injunction after one week, there are no negative consequences.

General remarks

As a rule, in the context of domestic violence, natural persons who have capacity to take steps in legal proceedings can petition for the above-described orders or file a statement of claim ("statement of claim" and "petition" are hereinafter used interchangeably). Such capacity is attained at the moment of becoming an adult. As far as minors affected by domestic violence are concerned, their statutory representative (e.g., a parent) can make a petition. A public prosecutor can also make a petition if they consider it necessary to protect the citizens' rights.

Protection of personal interests

Any person whose personal interests are threatened or infringed by violent acts of the abuser can petition.

Ordering the abuser to move out of the shared accommodation

The eviction order under the Family and Guardianship Code may be requested only by a spouse who is getting divorced.

A co-tenant (i.e., a person using a shared accommodation based on a title other than ownership) may request the eviction order under the Act on Tenants' Rights.

The eviction order under the DV Act may be requested by a family member affected by violence (for the purposes of this act, the term "family member" is defined broadly and covers cohabiting couples and any other persons sharing the accommodation or running a household with the abuser).

Injunction

With regard to an injunction, any party or participant in the court proceedings may demand it if they substantiate their claim and demonstrate legal interest in an injunction being granted. Substantiation of a claim is not equivalent to proving it and is less formal than during court proceedings (in some situations, the court may issue an injunction based solely on the claimant's statement).

1. Temporary custody of a child

If the child's well-being is endangered, the court may issue a relevant order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances. In particular, the court may issue an order that the minor be placed in foster care, placed in a family-run foster care center or in institutional foster care, or to temporarily entrust the role of foster family to another person. This ensures the care of children where their parents are not able to care for them or raise them. The foster family is responsible for the child's upbringing and representation, particularly in such matters as claiming benefits aimed at satisfying the child's needs. The placement in foster care is effected only if all other legal measures have been exhausted. The child remains in foster care until there are conditions allowing them to return to the family or to be placed with an adoptive family.

The court may also limit (or deprive) the parental authority of the child's parents if it is in the child's interest. Parental authority, in particular, involves the right of the parents to exercise custody over the child and the child's property and to raise the child. If the child's parents have limited parental authority despite the child being placed in foster care, they reserve the right to decide on certain important matters for the child, such as giving consent for the child to undergo a medical treatment.

Finally, in the case of a temporary obstacle in exercising parental authority, the court may suspend such authority. If the grounds for the deprivation, limitation or suspension of parental authority cease to exist, the court may restore it.

2. Child support orders

Parents' obligation to support a child is not time-limited. It ends when the child becomes an adult or when the child graduates from university. Parental obligation to support ceases upon children becoming able to support themselves, for example, upon finding a job or when the child's property is sufficient to cover the costs of their maintenance and upbringing. Moreover, parents may avoid the maintenance obligation toward mature children if it is excessively detrimental to them or if the children do not make sufficient efforts to support themselves.

When a child does not have parents and has insufficient means of support, the obligation to provide means of support and means of upbringing rests with the lineal blood relatives (e.g., grandparents) and siblings. The scope of the maintenance provided depends on the justified needs of the child, as well as the earning and financial capacity of the parent or other obliged person. Interestingly, if a parent gives up their property without a justified reason or resigns from employment for a less profitable one, the resulting change is not taken into account when determining the scope of their maintenance obligation.

The maintenance obligation of the parent may consist of personal efforts to support or raise the child, i.e., it may not need to take a monetary form, for example, a grandmother of a child may look after them and thereby fulfill the obligation toward the child.

There are three statutory provisions on ordering the abuser to move out of the accommodation (see the question "Are there civil protection orders?" above). However, there are no civil law provisions to order the abuser to stay away from places frequented by the victim(s) (other than the accommodation itself).

The instruments that may be considered as emergency civil orders are injunctions. An injunction is a temporary measure, issued in circumstances requiring swift action.

The protection of personal interests (e.g., health, dignity and bodily integrity), ordering the abuser to leave the shared accommodation and the injunction can serve as both a preventive and protective function.

An injunction may be issued ex parte prior to the instigation of the proceedings. However, when granting an injunction prior to the institution of proceedings, the court determines a time limit within which an initial pleading should be filed, failing which the injunction will be canceled. Once the pleading is filed and the proceedings are instigated, generally, the respondent is allowed — but not obligated — to take part in the hearing in civil cases. The presence of the respondent at the court hearing is not mandatory, therefore, their absence will not prevent the court from issuing a ruling. In some situations, however, the court may decide that the respondent's presence is necessary.

The court may also issue an order (default judgment; in Polish, wyrok zaoczny) if the respondent does not file a statement of defense within a specified time.

Only indirectly — if the abuser is ordered to leave the accommodation upon the request of the abused family member, the protection will also indirectly extend to other family members inhabiting the accommodation even if they did not file the petition.

The statutes do not impose limitations on the duration of the injunctions or orders described above. However, a court's order that the aggressor leaves the shared accommodation may be amended or set aside should the circumstances change.

The person obliged under the injunction may, at any time, request to set aside or vary a decision to award security if the reason to provide security changes or ceases to exist.

The statutes do not impose limitations on the duration of the injunctions or orders described above. However, a court's order that the aggressor leaves the shared accommodation may be amended or set aside should the circumstances change.

The person obliged under the injunction may, at any time, request to set aside or vary a decision to award security if the reason to provide security changes or ceases to exist.

Any facts important to the case may be used as evidence of domestic violence, e.g., a certificate from a doctor indicating that a victim has been beaten, recordings of violent actions of the abuser, witness statements, police reports, forms filled out as part of the so-called "Blue Card" procedure, etc.

The issue of admissibility of evidence from recordings obtained without the consent of one of the parties to the event was analyzed in the judgment of the court of appeal in Białystokof 31 December 2012 (file ref. I ACa 504/1). As indicated in this ruling:

• In the justification of the judgment of 25 April 2003 /IV CKN 94/01, LEX No. 80244/ the Supreme Court expressed the view that there are no fundamental reasons to completely disqualify the evidence from the recordings of telephone conversations disputed by the defendant, even if the recordings were made without the knowledge of one of the interlocutors, since the defendant did not effectively question the authenticity of this material during the proceedings.
• In turn, in the ruling of 10 January 2008, the court of appeal in Poznań /I ACa 1057/07, LEX No 466434/ stated the view that evidence obtained in an unlawful manner should as a rule not be admissible, holding that a malicious recording of a private conversation infringes the constitutional principle of freedom and protection of communication Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
• In the opinion of the court of appeal in Białystok, the above quoted jurisprudence, although seemingly contradictory, neither assumes absolute discretion in the use of evidence obtained 'in breach of law' nor advocates an absolute ban on their use.
• In any case, when making a decision on this issue, the court deciding in a case should bear in mind that there will often be a conflict between constitutionally protected values, most often the right to a fair trial, which is also the right to a truthful examination of the case by the court in accordance with Article 45 of the Polish Constitution, and the right to freedom and protection of communication in accordance with Article 49 of the Polish Constitution. Therefore, it is difficult to articulate a general directive in this matter that would apply in all cases, and it is probably not possible at all.
• In this state of affairs, the decision on admitting evidence obtained "unlawfully" should take into account the specific circumstances of the particular case, which in one case may justify giving priority to the need to consider the case in accordance with the material truth, and in another case may give priority to the right to protect the secrecy of communications. It seems obvious that a stricter approach should be applied to illegal eavesdropping on conversations carried out by third parties, or such illegal activities as interception of someone else's correspondence, or hacking into an email inbox, while a less firm approach should be applied to recording a conversation in a situation where the person recording is also the recipient of the information, i.e., in those cases where one of the participants documents the content of their speech in this way.
• In recent legal literature an opinion has been presented and widely substantiated that the principle of inadmissibility of illegal evidence recognized in civil procedural law is not of a general nature. This rule does not cover evidence in the form of recordings made personally by the participants of events, which are then presented to the court by these persons acting as parties. It is permissible to present evidence from recordings made by persons acting as parties of the case, who as participants in the conversation do not violate the provisions of law protecting the secrecy of communications (Article 49 of the Polish Constitution). In a case of violation of other rights of an absolute nature (personal rights, right to privacy), the lack of unlawfulness results from the implementation of the right to a trial (Article 45 of the Polish Constitution).

If a person wants to file a statement of claim to protect their personal interest, the statement should include, in particular, the following details:

• specific relief sought and, in property rights cases, the amount in dispute
• facts in support of the claim
• information regarding whether the parties have attempted mediation (and, if not, the reasons for failing to do so)

If a person wants to file for an order under the DV Act, the petition should comply with the provisions applicable to a statement of claim (except that it should include the names of interested persons rather than the defendant).

If a person wants to file for an injunction, the motion for an injunction should specify the following in particular:

• type of security or injunction sought (and, for pecuniary claims, the amount sought to be secured)
• substantiation of the facts underlying the motion

In addition, all motions and statements of claim referred to above need to comply with the requirements of a pleading. In particular, they should contain the name of the court to which it is addressed, forenames and surnames of the parties, their legal representatives and agents, type of pleading, operative part of the petition or statement, and signature of the party or its legal representative or agent.

If the victim is a party (that is, for example, when it requests an eviction order) to the proceedings, they are not required to attend a hearing. In principle, a party's absence at the trial does not prevent the court from conducting the proceedings. However, depending on the circumstances of a given case, a judge may decide that the party's presence is necessary. In some situations, a nonappearance before the court may have negative consequences (e.g., the court may suspend the proceedings). To avoid such consequences, a party may request that a trial be held in their absence.

Witnesses are obliged to attend a hearing. As a rule, no witness may refuse to testify unless specific circumstances provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure arise. For instance, a witness may refuse to testify if they are the party's spouse, ascendant, descendant, sibling, etc. Consequently, in domestic violence cases, it is not uncommon that witnesses are allowed to refuse to testify.

In cases involving a minor, the court hears the minor if their mental development, health condition and maturity so permit. The hearing takes place outside the courtroom. Moreover, before issuing a decision, the court hears from a statutory representative of the minor.

In addition, in divorce proceedings, minors under the age of 13 and descendants of parties under the age of 17 may not be examined as witnesses. This prohibition, however, applies only to the proceedings related to the eviction order under the Family and Guardianship Code.

Yes, see Section 4.4 "Restitution and remedies available to victims" below.

As a rule, only property-related claims are subject to time limitations. Many claims concerning the protection of personal interests are non-property related (e.g., demand that the threatening action be ceased or demand that the person who committed the violation performs acts necessary to remove its consequences), hence, they are not time barred. However, some claims, such as a demand for pecuniary compensation, are property-related and they may be subject to limitation.

Requests for a court order that the abuser leaves the accommodation (or for a court order that the co-tenant be evicted) are not barred by the statute of limitations. The court may change or set aside the order should the circumstances change.

The person obliged under the injunction may, at any time, request to set aside or vary a decision to award security if the reason to provide security changes or ceases to exist.

An injunction could be considered an emergency order. What is specific about this instrument is that a motion for injunction must be heard promptly, but no later than within one week of being received by the court. As noted above, the court may also grant security or an injunction prior to the initiation or in the course of proceedings.

See also Section 2 above, which refers to a draft law proposed by the Ministry of Justice to introduce more effective measures in emergencies.

As a rule, the court may not adjudicate as to an object that is not covered by a claim or award more than was claimed.

In family and guardianship cases, however, the situation is different, as the court may institute proceedings ex officio and change its decision (even a non-appealable one) where it is necessary for the welfare of the minor.

As far as assessment of evidence is concerned, the court has relatively broad discretion to assess its credibility and validity. In particular, under the Code of Civil Procedure, the court assesses the credibility and probative value of evidence at its own discretion, based on the comprehensive consideration of available material. The court also assesses, on the same basis, the relevance of the party's refusal to present evidence or the party's interference with the taking of evidence in violation of the court order.

No, a legal representative can petition on behalf of a minor. See the question "Who can petition?" in Section 4.1 above.

It is a general rule of Polish civil law that a person who has inflicted damage to another person by their own fault is obliged to redress it.

More specifically, in the case of bodily harm or a health disorder, the redress of the damage includes all expenditures resulting from it. At the request of the injured party, the abuser may be ordered to lay out in advance an amount required to cover the treatment costs and, where the injured party has become a disabled person, an amount required to cover the costs of training for another profession.

Furthermore, a court may grant to the injured party a relevant amount as pecuniary compensation for the wrong suffered. The same rule applies to the infringement of personal interests, except that the court may also award an appropriate pecuniary amount for a community purpose indicated by the victim.

In principle, a victim who is successful in a court proceeding may also request a reimbursement of the costs for the court proceedings.

Yes, a remedy for damage covers the losses that the injured party has suffered and the benefits they could have obtained but for the damage. If the victim is incapable of working or has diminished future work prospects, the victim may seek lost wages and profits. The injured party may also demand a relevant pension from the abuser.

In principle, a separate civil process is required to obtain compensation. However, certain civil law remedies, such as compensation for the suffered harm, may also be ordered in a criminal case.

Moreover, the court can consolidate separate cases if they could have been included in a single claim. For example, if two abused family members file for orders for the abuser to leave the accommodation, the court may hear them together.