July 16, 2026

expert's insight

Why debt recovery is worth starting with amicable collection, especially abroad

Author : Magda Hapeta-Staniek

A carrier waiting for a €1,800 payment for a freight to Spain faces a choice: sue the debtor and freeze thousands of zlotys in court fees, translations, and legal representation – or use a mechanism that exists in Polish and EU law but is often underappreciated. We are talking about amicable debt collection, the cost of which is transferred to the debtor. The basis: Article 10 of the Act on Counteracting Excessive Delays in Commercial Transactions and its equivalents across the EU.

Law that works automatically

"The Act of 8 March 2013 gives the creditor the right to compensation automatically – without prior notice and without having to prove damage – the moment the debtor falls into delay. The Supreme Court ruled on this unequivocally in resolution III CZP 94/15, stating that the compensation is due by operation of law. These regulations are tiered: €40, €70, or €100 depending on the invoice value.

However, the real power of this mechanism lies in paragraph 2: the creditor is also entitled to the reimbursement of debt recovery costs exceeding this flat-rate amount. If a carrier commissions the case to a professional debt collection agency, its commission can be fully transferred to the debtor. Ultimately, it is the debtor who pays for not settling the bill on time," says Karol Wojtowski, an expert at Pactus.eu.

An EU standard, not a Polish peculiarity

The Polish act implements Directive 2011/7/EU, Article 6 of which obliges all member states to provide creditors with both a flat-rate compensation and the reimbursement of recovery costs exceeding this amount. Analogous mechanisms therefore operate wherever Polish carriers drive: in France (Art. L441-10 of the Code de commerce), in Italy (Legislative Decree 231/2002), and in Spain (Ley 3/2004). The mechanism works even outside the European Union – in the United Kingdom, the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 is in force, featuring a £40/70/100 flat-rate fee and the recovery of costs exceeding the flat rate. Brexit did not spoil anything here.

The "debtor pays for collection" model thus has a uniform legal basis practically across the entire continent. And this is not a theoretical construct: specialized companies in the TSL sector use it daily.

"Pactus.eu, originating from the Trans.eu group, conducts amicable debt collection at the debtor's expense in eighteen countries: Poland, Germany, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Spain, Bulgaria, Belgium, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Austria, Croatia, Portugal, and Luxembourg – covering almost all main routes of European road transport," adds Karol Wojtowski.

Court abroad: a bill that hurts before the judgment is even passed

Pursuing claims against a foreign debtor in court means:

• Upfront costs. Court fees (in Poland, generally 5% of the dispute value), legal representation, advances – all payable before the ruling, with reimbursement only after a final judgment and successful enforcement. With operating margins at 2–4%, freezing several thousand zlotys for a claim worth €1,500 can be lethal to liquidity. In the case of amicable collection at Pactus.eu, you only pay a commission on recovered funds, which is then transferred to your debtor in the form of a debit note.
• Translations and service of documents. A cross-border dispute requires sworn translations of the transport order, CMR consignment note, and correspondence – costs can reach up to a dozen percent of the claim's value. Serving documents under Regulation 2020/1784 takes weeks, and sometimes months.
• Time. A realistic timeframe for obtaining an enforceable title is 12–24 months, followed by enforcement in a foreign jurisdiction under foreign procedures. Amicable collection conducted by a negotiator in the debtor's language resolves successful cases within weeks.
• Jurisdictional risk. Article 31 of the CMR Convention and its relation to the Brussels I bis Regulation make the choice of the competent court non-obvious – and a mistake means losing the case on formal grounds.
• Business relations. A lawsuit almost always ends cooperation, and in TSL, the debtor is often a freight forwarder with whom the carrier wishes to continue working. Amicable debt collection allows you to get your money back without burning bridges – and the fact that its cost is borne by the debtor acts as a disciplining factor.

Economic calculation

As the expert from Pactus.eu says: "A typical debt in transport is €500–3,000. The total cost of a cross-border lawsuit often approaches the value of the claim, and sometimes even exceeds it – and debtors know this perfectly well. The pathology of 'funding oneself at the expense of the carrier' is based on this calculation. Amicable collection with the transfer of costs to the debtor reverses this: the creditor bears no entry costs, and the profitability of delaying payments vanishes."

Limits of the mechanism

When a debtor consistently refuses to pay or when the service was indeed not performed properly, court proceedings may become necessary. However, it is worth looking at the practice: due to complex transport orders and the difficulties faced by the industry, a significant portion of invoices sent to debt collection are – in the opinion of the party obliged to pay – disputed. Meanwhile, Pactus.eu's experience shows that in about 70% of such cases, professional debt collection can successfully dismiss objections by invoking the supremacy of mandatory provisions, recovering the funds without involving the court. The point is that judicial debt collection should be a choice of last resort – not the first impulse.

Conclusion for the industry

"The legislator has given creditors a tool tailored to the problems of the TSL industry, i.e., foreign debtors and chronic payment bottlenecks. Amicable debt collection combines speed, the absence of language barriers, and a chance to maintain the business relationship, and the law mandates that its costs be borne by the party that caused the delay. Whoever does not pay on time should bear the consequences. The law states this directly; you just need to use it," comments Karol Wojtowski, Pactus.eu.