A few words on problems with electronic service of documents | In Principle

Electronic service was intended to streamline contacts with public administrative bodies and the courts. Generally it does simplify matters, but in tax cases some doubts have arisen as to the effectiveness of filing of documents, requiring resolution by the courts.

Digitalisation of the public administration in Poland is becoming a reality. In recent years several parallel systems have been introduced for conducting official correspondence with public administrative bodies and the courts. The first to arise was the Electronic Platform for Public Administration Services (Elektroniczna Platforma Usług Administracji Publicznej, known as “ePUAP”), later joined by the “e-Tax Office” system (e-Urząd Skarbowy, for contacts with Polish tax offices), and finally by the public registered electronic delivery service known as e-Doręczenia (meaning “e-Deliveries”), designed to be the electronic equivalent of registered mail.

But the parallel operation of these systems, as well as the regulations governing them, has generated several problems for taxpayers and their professional representatives. This has to do with the effectiveness of filing of documents with the tax authorities or the courts, and the effectiveness of deliveries made by them to taxpayers.

e-Doręczenia or ePUAP when filing a complaint with the administrative court?

When the e-Doręczenia system became mandatory for tax authorities and professional representatives, some representatives began to file complaints to the administrative courts using this system (via the administrative body whose act or omission was being challenged). But the courts rejected complaints filed in this manner, holding that ePUAP remained the only permissible channel for electronic filing of complaints to the administrative courts.

This approach could strip taxpayers of their access to the courts, solely due to an interpretation of the notion of the “electronic mailbox of the body” (elektroniczna skrzynka podawcza organu) as used in the Administrative Court Procedure Law.

The Supreme Administrative Court somewhat softened this stance in a series of rulings issued in late 2025 and early 2026, holding that filing of a complaint to the administrative court via the e-Doręczenia system is effective against the court when the administrative body then forwarded it to the court by the appropriate route of ePUAP. The rationale was that the right to fair and open consideration of a taxpayer’s case cannot be realised when a complaint is rejected, and review by the administrative court is needlessly blocked, solely because the complaint was filed using an electronic communications channel other than ePUAP. In the view of the Supreme Administrative Court, the sanction of rejecting a complaint for failure to follow the appropriate procedure, due to use of the e-Doręczenia system instead, is not currently provided for in the Administrative Court Procedure Law or in the specific acts creating the system for electronic service of documents.

But the Supreme Administrative Court did not hold that the proper method for filing a complaint to the administrative court is e-Doręczenia, instead of ePUAP. It only found that filing a complaint using e-Doręczenia should not result in rejection of the complaint and loss of the right to judicial review, particularly considering the complexity of the system for electronic deliveries in Poland.

Given the doubts raised by this issue in the jurisprudence, ePUAP remains the favoured method for submitting complaints and other documents to the administrative court (until such time as the e-Doręczenia system is implemented in the Polish administrative courts).

In 2025 the Ministry of Digital Affairs drafted an amendment to the Electronic Deliveries Act designed to eliminated doubts as to the effectiveness of filing pleadings via the e-Doręczenia system, when separate regulations also provide for the possibility of submitting pleadings to the “electronic mailbox of the body,” for example to the administrative courts. Such an amendment would bring the law into line with the reasoning stated in the recent rulings by the Supreme Administrative Court, and finally remove the doubts in this area. Thus it would be desirable to complete the legislative process for this amendment. But as of now, work on this proposal has stalled at the level of the Council of Ministers.

Legal fiction of delivery doesn’t work when serving documents via e-Urząd Skarbowy

With a multiplicity of systems currently in place through which it is possible to make electronic deliveries, the tax authorities recently began to serve documents also via e-Urząd Skarbowy accounts—even on litigation counsel in a situation where the power of attorney in the case files indicated an address for e-Doręczenia. If such a document was not collected, after a certain period the authorities deemed the document delivered—a legal fiction of service.

This consequently gave rise to another dispute under the provisions on electronic service of documents, this time concerning the effectiveness of service of pleadings on counsel addressed to counsel’s e-Urząd Skarbowy account. A seven-judge panel of the Supreme Administrative Court addressed this issue recently in the judgment of 3 August 2026 (case no. I FSK 1307/25). According to the published written justification for this ruling:

• If counsel has been appointed, as a rule documents should be served on counsel at the address stated in the power of attorney.
• Counsel’s consent to service of documents issued by tax authorities to an e-Urząd Skarbowy account does not waive the priority of service on counsel at the electronic address stated in the power of attorney (that is, such consent does not change the electronic address indicated in the specific power of attorney).
• Service of documents on counsel via counsel’s e-Urząd Skarbowy account is not entirely excluded, because this does not mean that service on counsel has been overlooked—but such service will be effective only if the document is actually collected by counsel.
• It is not possible to make such service by applying the legal fiction of delivery, but if counsel has actually collected the document from the e-Urząd Skarbowy account, the period for taking action in the litigation triggered by the delivery is counted from the time when the document is actually collected.

This judgment stresses that the rule that pleadings shall be served on counsel at the address stated in the power of attorney serves a guarantee function and designates the preferred method for the authority’s communication with counsel. The court underlined that a change of the address for service must be an identifiable act within the course of the proceeding. By contrast, consent to service of documents via e-Urząd Skarbowy is expressed outside the files of the specific proceeding, and is general and systemic in nature, and thus does not constitute notice of a change in the address for service.

This ruling helps clarify the Polish system for electronic service of documents and is relevant for taxpayers in whose cases the legal fiction of service was applied in the use of the e-Urząd Skarbowy system, and who suffered negative consequences accordingly. Such taxpayers can employ the holding in this judgment in ongoing disputes, and can also analyse the possibility of filing legal challenges to decisions served to an e-Urząd Skarbowy account, where service was deemed effective by the tax authorities through use of this legal fiction.

Can public administrative bodies still deliver documents by the traditional route?

Generally, since 1 April 2025, companies entered in the National Court Register (KRS), as well as operators entering their individual businesses in the Central Registration and Information on Business (CEIDG) after that date, are required to have an e-Doręczenia address entered in the database of electronic addresses. Other businesses registered in CEIDG have had such an obligation since 1 October 2026. Citizens in general can also have such accounts, but are not required to. Establishment of an e-Doręczenia address and entry in the database of electronic addresses is regarded as a request that public entities deliver correspondence to the holder at that address.

The aim is for e-Doręczenia to become the main channel for communications with public administrative bodies (and in the future, also for communications with the courts). Under current law, public entities are already supposed to deliver correspondence to an e-Doręczenia address entered in the database of electronic addresses when proof of dispatch or receipt is required. The regulations provide for the priority (and not just the possibility) of electronic delivery. Thus traditional delivery is becoming only a fallback, to be used when electronic delivery is not possible.

Most tax offices have already launched communications via e-Doręczenia, and the system functions well. Nonetheless, taxpayers using the e-Doręczenia system must remain vigilant until this system has been thoroughly implemented across all public authorities and the courts.

Kamil Walicki, tax adviser, Tax practice, Wardyński & Partners