Nearly 1,400 cases involving variable-rate loans linked to WIBOR reached Poland’s regional courts in the first half of 2026, more than 92% higher than a year earlier. Courts issued more than 420 rulings over the same period, an increase of more than 146%. The surge shows growing borrower interest in challenging WIBOR clauses, but it does not mean consumers are winning en masse. After the Court of Justice of the European Union’s February 2026 judgment, Polish courts still assess each case individually, including whether the bank clearly explained variable interest and the related economic risk.
In the first six months of 2026, regional courts across Poland received almost 1,400 claims concerning bank agreements with variable interest rates based on WIBOR. A year earlier, the number was around 700.
‘The rise in lawsuits reflects the growing maturity of consumer litigation. Borrowers are no longer afraid to go to court. They have seen successes in foreign-currency and consumer-credit cases, so it is natural that interest in zloty loans is also increasing,’ says attorney Jakub Bartosiak of MBM Legal.
He adds that despite the impressive percentage growth, the number of WIBOR cases is still relatively limited and could increase much more sharply after the first favourable final judgments for borrowers or another supportive ruling from the CJEU.
CJEU ruling changed the legal debate, but not the outcome of every case
Professor Paweł Szczęśniak of Maria Curie-Skłodowska University points to the CJEU judgment of 12 February 2026 in case C-471/24 as the key development shaping litigation in Poland.
Under Article 5 of Directive 93/13, contractual terms presented to consumers in writing must be drafted in plain and intelligible language. CJEU case law treats transparency primarily as the consumer’s ability to understand the economic consequences of a contractual term.
‘A lack of transparency is not in itself sufficient to establish that a contractual term is unfair. The court must determine whether the term creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer,’ Szczęśniak explains.
Warsaw accounts for more than one-fifth of all claims
The largest number of WIBOR-related lawsuits was filed with the Regional Court in Warsaw — 282, representing more than 20% of all such cases nationwide. Poznań was the only other court to record a three-digit number, with 116 cases.
Bartosiak says this reflects both jurisdiction rules and market structure. Most large banks are headquartered in Warsaw, the capital is Poland’s largest housing market, and Warsaw and Poznań are also home to major law firms specialising in consumer litigation.
More than 420 rulings in six months
Polish courts issued more than 420 decisions in WIBOR cases in the first half of 2026, compared with just over 170 a year earlier. The increase reflects the fact that the earliest claims were filed after the sharp rise in interest rates in 2022–2023 and are now reaching the judgment stage.
Some courts had also waited for the February 2026 CJEU ruling before deciding cases.
‘The overwhelming majority of these cases end with a court judgment. Pre-litigation settlement attempts usually end with the bank refusing. Cases that finish without a judgment are very rare,’ Bartosiak says.
Courts are not automatically siding with borrowers
Szczęśniak stresses that after the February CJEU judgment, Polish courts have also dismissed consumer claims challenging WIBOR-linked agreements. Judges have found that a bank’s failure to explain the detailed methodology used to calculate the benchmark does not automatically make the contractual term unfair.
In a judgment of 16 June 2026, for example, the Regional Court in Rzeszów held that banks are not required to provide consumers with a full lecture in economics and mathematics. Courts also note that the risk of a change in WIBOR affects both parties to a variable-rate loan agreement, not only the borrower.
The rapid increase in litigation therefore signals a growing legal dispute rather than a settled line of case law. Much will depend on how appellate courts interpret disclosure duties and transparency requirements in the coming months.
