A judgment of the National Appeals Chamber (KIO) rarely puts an end to the emotions in a procedure. For one party it is a confirmation that it was right; for the other, the first reflex is often: “I am filing an appeal against the KIO judgment”. Let me clarify the terminology straight away, because it is the foundation for further decisions: an “appeal” is not lodged against a KIO ruling (an appeal is the remedy by which proceedings before the Chamber are initiated), but a complaint to the public procurement court. The name has practical significance – by confusing the institutions, it is also easy to confuse the time limits and the addressee of the pleading, and these cannot be restored unless strict conditions are met.

Below I explain what a judgment of the Chamber really means, when and how it can be challenged, how the court proceedings run, how much it costs and when continuing the fight makes sense – and when it is better to choose another route.

What a KIO judgment means in practice

The National Appeals Chamber hears appeals lodged in contract award procedures. It issues a judgment (upholding or dismissing the appeal) or an order terminating the proceedings – e.g. on rejection of the appeal or discontinuance of the appeal proceedings. A KIO ruling is issued within the framework of the legal protection measures regulated in Division IX of the Act of 11 September 2019 – Public Procurement Law (hereinafter: PPL).

What does this mean for the parties?

First, the Chamber’s ruling produces effects even before it becomes final. If the Chamber upholds the appeal, it orders the contracting authority to perform specific actions or to repeat them, or to annul actions (e.g. to repeat the examination and evaluation of bids, to annul the selection of the most advantageous bid). 

The contracting authority usually complies with such a ruling even though the opposing party is entitled to a complaint, but remember that there are situations in which the contracting authority does not respect the content of the KIO judgment or of its earlier acceptance of the appeal. In such a case, you should lodge another appeal against the action or omission of the contracting authority that is inconsistent with the content of the judgment or with the acceptance of the appeal.

Second, a KIO judgment is not the last word. The Act provides for full, two-instance judicial review: a complaint to the public procurement court and, against its decision – under certain conditions – a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.

Third, the moment of service of the ruling together with the statement of reasons is crucial. It is from this date that the time limit for the complaint runs, and without knowing the reasons for the decision it is difficult to reliably assess the prospects of further action. Therefore, the first step after an unfavourable judgment should be a calm analysis of the statement of reasons, not automatically writing a pleading to the court.

Can a KIO judgment be challenged

Yes. Pursuant to Article 579(1) PPL, the parties and participants in the appeal proceedings are entitled to a complaint to the court against a ruling of the Chamber and against an order of the President of the Chamber on the return of the appeal (Article 519(1) PPL). It is this complaint that is colloquially called an “appeal against a KIO judgment” – and it is this that should be prepared if we disagree with the decision.

Who can lodge a complaint against a KIO ruling:

• the parties to the appeal proceedings (the contracting authority and the appellant),
• the participants in the appeal proceedings (e.g. a contractor who effectively joined the appeal on the side of one of the parties),
• the President of the Public Procurement Office (UZP), who acts here in the public interest, in a capacity similar to that of a public prosecutor (Article 580(4) PPL),
• in certain cases – the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Ombudsman.

The time limit is crucial. The complaint is lodged within 14 days of the date of service of the Chamber’s ruling (or of the order of the President of the Chamber on the return of the appeal), through the President of the Chamber, while simultaneously sending a copy to the opponent of the complaint (Article 580(2) PPL). To meet the time limit, it is sufficient to post the complaint with the designated operator (Poczta Polska) or to send it to the address for electronic service. The President of the Office has more time for a complaint – 30 days from the date the ruling was issued (Article 580(4) PPL).

The 14-day time limit is a preclusive one. Failure to meet it results in rejection of the complaint, although in exceptional situations – where the party failed to perform the action through no fault of its own – the time limit may be restored upon an application submitted within 7 days of the cessation of the cause of the failure (Article 585 PPL).

What the court proceedings look like

The complaint is heard by a single specialised court for the whole country: the Regional Court in Warsaw – public procurement court (Article 580(1) PPL). Concentrating cases in one court is intended to promote consistency and specialisation of case law – this is a significant change compared to the previous legal framework, in which the competent court was the regional court for the seat of the contracting authority.

The path is as follows:

1. Lodging the complaint through the President of the Chamber. The President of the Chamber does not examine the complaint on the merits – he or she forwards it together with the files of the appeal proceedings to the public procurement court within 7 days of receipt (Article 580(3) PPL).
2. Formal requirements. The complaint must meet the requirements of a pleading and contain an indication of the challenged ruling (stating whether it is challenged in whole or in part), the pleas and their concise justification, an indication of evidence and a request to set aside or amend the ruling (Article 581 PPL). This is not the place to “tell the story all over again” – the precision of the pleas determines the outcome.
3. Limits of the review. In complaint proceedings, it is not possible to extend the demands of the appeal or to make new demands (Article 582 PPL), and the court is bound by the scope of the challenge and the pleas (Article 583 PPL). In other words: what was not raised in the appeal and in the complaint usually remains outside the court’s review. That is why the quality of the original appeal to KIO affects the entire further path.
4. Application of the provisions on appeals mutatis mutandis. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) on appeals (apelacja) apply mutatis mutandis to complaint proceedings, unless the PPL provides otherwise (Article 579(2) PPL). The opponent of the complaint may submit a response to the complaint – this is optional, but desirable in practice.
5. Speed. The court hears the case without delay, no later than within one month of the date of receipt of the complaint (Article 587(1) PPL). This is an instructional time limit, but it shows the legislator’s intention: procurement disputes are to be resolved efficiently. Usually, a case of this type is heard within a few months.
6. Decision. The court may dismiss the complaint or uphold it – by amending the challenged ruling and ruling on the merits of the case or by setting it aside. The court may also reject a complaint lodged after the time limit or affected by deficiencies that have not been remedied (Article 584 and Article 588 PPL).

One specific feature is worth remembering: in cases concerning an abnormally low price, the Act specifically allocates the burden of proof (Article 586 PPL), which may be decisive for the outcome of such disputes.

Costs and risks of further action

This is the most frequently underestimated element of the decision. A complaint against a KIO ruling is genuinely costly.

Court fee for the complaint. Pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Act of 28 July 2005 on court costs in civil cases, a fixed fee equal to three times the appeal fee paid in the case to which the complaint relates is charged on a complaint against a KIO ruling. This wording has been in force since 1 January 2021 – previously the fee was five times the appeal fee, and the Constitutional Tribunal, in its judgment of 2 December 2020 (case ref. SK 9/17), found it to be disproportionately high and in breach of the right to a court.

Since the amount of the appeal fee depends on the type and value of the contract, the fee for the complaint is as follows:

Type of contract	Appeal fee	Fee for the complaint (3× appeal fee)
Supplies/services, below EU thresholds	PLN 7,500	PLN 22,500
Supplies/services, at or above EU thresholds	PLN 15,000	PLN 45,000
Works, below EU thresholds	PLN 10,000	PLN 30,000
Works, at or above EU thresholds	PLN 20,000	PLN 60,000

On top of that come the costs of legal representation and – in the event of a loss – the risk of having to reimburse the opponent’s costs. One must also reckon with market realities: if the contracting authority has managed to conclude the contract (and it may do so after the KIO ruling), a win before the court will not always restore the situation prior to the decision; it may open the way to other claims, but not necessarily to the contract itself.

Assessing whether a complaint is worthwhile is therefore always a calculation: the contract value and expected profit vs. the court fee, the costs of the attorney, time and the prospects of success resulting from the statement of reasons of the KIO judgment.

When it is worth going further

From a practitioner’s perspective, a complaint makes sense above all when:

• the KIO judgment is based on an error in the interpretation of the law, and not solely on the assessment of evidence – courts are more willing to correct legal errors than findings of fact;
• the economic stakes are high enough for the fee and costs to remain proportionate to the value of the contract and the real chance of obtaining it;
• the pleas were properly formulated already at the appeal stage – let us remember that the court is bound by the scope of the pleas; a complaint will not remedy the deficiencies of the original appeal;
• the case has precedential or systemic significance for the contractor’s business (e.g. a recurring interpretation problem in subsequent tenders);
• there is a real possibility of reversing the effects – the contract has not yet been concluded or its conclusion does not close the way to obtaining the contract.

I advise against a complaint “on principle” – as an emotional reaction to a loss. Given the low rate at which KIO rulings are successfully challenged and the high court fee, the decision should be preceded by a cool-headed analysis of the statement of reasons and a realistic forecast of the outcome.

If the public procurement court issues an unfavourable decision, there is still a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court (Article 590 PPL). It lies against a judgment of the court or an order terminating the proceedings in the case and may be lodged by a party and by the President of the UZP. Importantly, in the public procurement regime, the cassation appeal is not limited by the threshold of the value of the subject matter of the appeal that applies in “ordinary” civil cases. The time limit for a party is, as a rule, two months from service of the ruling with the statement of reasons, and for the President of the UZP – six months.

Alternatives after a loss

A complaint to the court is not the only route. Depending on the situation, it is worth considering:

• Taking part in subsequent procedures instead of a dispute. Sometimes a faster and cheaper path to revenue is to bid in the next tender, especially when the chances of a complaint are slim and the errors from this procedure can be eliminated for the future.
• Drawing procedural conclusions. Analysing why the appeal was dismissed (an incorrectly formulated plea, lack of evidence, a missed time limit) genuinely increases effectiveness in subsequent cases. Many defeats before KIO originate already at the stage of drafting the appeal.
• Alerting the President of the UZP. The President of the Office oversees the procurement system and has the power to lodge a complaint and to audit the award of contracts. In cases of systemic significance, it is worth considering drawing his or her attention to the problem.

Damages

Claims for damages. If you intend to claim damages from the contracting authority for its errors made during the tender, and you have a KIO judgment in this case that is unfavourable to you, then in order to be able to claim such damages effectively you must successfully challenge the KIO judgment by way of a complaint to the Regional Court. Remember that the Regional Court, when hearing a complaint against a KIO ruling, will not award you damages. A claim for damages requires the initiation of separate court proceedings.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Is an “appeal against a KIO judgment” the same as a complaint?

In colloquial language yes, but legally no. An appeal is addressed to KIO against an action of the contracting authority. Against the KIO ruling itself, a complaint to the public procurement court is available – and it is this that must be lodged if we disagree with the judgment.

How much time do I have for a complaint against a KIO ruling?

14 days from service of the Chamber’s ruling, lodged through the President of the Chamber (the President of the UZP – 30 days from the issue of the ruling).

Which court does the complaint go to?

To the Regional Court in Warsaw – the public procurement court, competent for the whole country.

How much does a complaint against a KIO ruling cost?

The fixed fee is three times the appeal fee, i.e. from PLN 22,500 to PLN 60,000 depending on the type and value of the contract – plus the costs of the attorney and the risk of the opponent’s costs.

Is there any further remedy against the court’s judgment?

Yes – a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, which may be lodged by a party (as a rule within 2 months of service of the ruling with the statement of reasons) and by the President of the UZP.

The above material is for information and educational purposes only – it does not constitute legal advice or an opinion on a specific case. Legal status: the provisions of the Public Procurement Law (consolidated text: Journal of Laws 2026, item 793) and of the Act on court costs in civil cases (Journal of Laws 2005 No. 167, item 1398, as amended). Before deciding to challenge a KIO ruling, I recommend an individual analysis of the case and consultation with an attorney.

Dominik Styczyński – attorney-at-law (radca prawny), public procurement law expert representing contractors and contracting authorities before the National Appeals Chamber (KIO)