Legal framework

PAD fines in Poland: who enforces the law and what are the limits?

In Poland, the Polski Akt o Dostępności assigns oversight of e-commerce services to the minister responsible for digital affairs, while PFRON has its own inspection powers. Either may impose a fine, subject to two cumulative limits that must be distinguished from the rules applying to public-sector websites.

The short answer

The Polski Akt o Dostępności (PAD) has applied since 28 June 2025. For e-commerce, the minister responsible for digitalization oversees the market; the president of PFRON’s management board may also conduct inspections and impose a fine. The fine is capped at ten times the reference average monthly salary and may never exceed 10% of the previous financial year’s turnover. Fines for public websites fall under a different law.

Which law exactly are we talking about?

Polski Akt o Dostępności is the name used by the [Polish government](https://www.gov.pl/web/dostepnosc-cyfrowa/polski-akt-o-dostepnosci--uslugi-handlu-elektronicznego) for the law of 26 April 2024 on the accessibility of certain products and services offered by economic operators. Its official title is “Ustawa o zapewnianiu spełniania wymagań dostępności niektórych produktów i usług przez podmioty gospodarcze”. Published in [Dz.U. 2024 poz. 731](https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/D2024000073101.pdf), it transposes the European Accessibility Act into Polish law.

The law entered into force on 28 June 2025, subject to the exceptions to its commencement set out in the text. The [official ELI register](https://eli.gov.pl/eli/DU/2024/731/ogl) listed it as in force on 5 October 2026. To assess a particular situation, however, you must start with the service or product concerned, not merely the existence of a website.

E-commerce services are among the services covered under Article 18. Article 4 excludes services offered or provided by microenterprises, as well as certain maps and third-party content over which the operator has no control. An exclusion must be assessed in light of the service and the facts; it cannot be inferred simply from the apparent size of a website.

The law also contains separate transitional provisions. Non-compliant products placed on the market before it entered into force are not covered under the conditions set out in Article 84; Article 85 permits the continued use of those products to provide services, subject to its conditions, until 28 June 2030 at the latest. This deadline is not a general postponement of the requirements applicable to services.

Who oversees an e-commerce service?

[PAD, Article 38](https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/D2024000073101.pdf) establishes a market surveillance system comprising the president of the management board of the Polish State Fund for the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons (PFRON), the competent sectoral surveillance authorities and the customs authorities. This list describes the system as a whole; it does not mean that every authority carries out the same oversight of an e-commerce website.

For e-commerce services, the sectoral authority is the minister responsible for digital affairs. The [Polish government](https://www.gov.pl/web/dostepnosc-cyfrowa/polski-akt-o-dostepnosci--uslugi-handlu-elektronicznego) confirms that the Minister of Digital Affairs, within the Ministry of Digital Affairs, exercises this oversight. PFRON’s role is not limited to forwarding notifications, however: Article 39 also empowers it to conduct inspections and the procedures provided for by law.

[PFRON itself describes](https://bip.pfron.org.pl/nadzor-rynku/) its role in monitoring the system, receiving notifications, and conducting inspections and procedures. The distinction for an operator is therefore this: the minister is the sectoral surveillance authority for e-commerce, but the president of PFRON’s management board may also act within their statutory powers. Under Article 73, either may impose a fine by administrative decision.

What does an inspection examine?

The starting point is the service’s conformity assessment: Article 32 of the [PAD](https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/D2024000073101.pdf) requires the service provider to carry it out. An inspection examines that assessment before checking the service against the applicable accessibility requirements. The assessment therefore does not replace the actual accessibility of the user journey.

Article 43 links the opening of an inspection to reasonable grounds for the president of the PFRON management board or the competent authority to doubt whether a product or service meets a requirement. This framework helps explain why a notice of non-compliance may matter without, on its own, constituting a decision to impose a penalty.

Anyone may submit a “zawiadomienie o niespełnianiu wymagań dostępności” to PFRON, meaning a notice that a product or service does not meet accessibility requirements. Articles 67 and 68 provide for its examination or referral to the competent authority within a maximum of 30 days; if the notice is substantiated, an inspection follows. A report is therefore neither conclusive proof of a breach nor an automatic fine.

To prepare a response to an inspection, the practical question is whether you can present the assessment you carried out and evidence showing how the service meets the requirements that apply to it. Automated analysis can help identify certain testable defects, but it cannot, on its own, demonstrate full compliance: manual checks remain necessary.

What steps precede a potential penalty?

For a service under review, Article 62 of the [PAD](https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/D2024000073101.pdf) provides for a formal notice requiring the provider to restore compliance or stop providing the service, and to submit evidence within the specified period. That period cannot exceed 120 days from receipt of the request. The provision also allows a decision temporarily prohibiting the offering or provision of the service for up to 180 days. This prohibition is separate from the amount of any potential fine.

If the provider does not submit the requested evidence, Article 63 provides for proceedings to be initiated by the authority. These may lead to a decision under Article 65 and, where applicable, a fine under Article 73. Treating the notification, inspection, formal notice and fine as a single step would obscure the separate actions and deadlines set out in the law.

A different rule applies to products: in the situation it describes, Article 51 provides for a formal notice to produce the conformity assessment before a penalty is imposed, with a deadline of at least 60 days. That deadline must not be applied by analogy to the review of an e-commerce service. For such a service, the relevant provision concerning evidence after an inspection is the maximum period of 120 days under Article 62.

Finally, Articles 69 and 70 set out the procedural rules that apply where the PAD contains no specific provision. Inspections are governed by Polish rules concerning businesses, while proceedings and notifications fall under the “Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego” (KPA), the Polish Code of Administrative Procedure. The right to appeal follows from this procedural framework; the PAD does not state it explicitly in its article on fines.

What is the actual fine cap?

Article 73 of the [PAD, Dz.U. 2024 poz. 731](https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/D2024000073101.pdf) sets two caps that apply together. The first is equal to ten times the average monthly wage in the national economy for the preceding reference year, as announced by the president of the Główny Urząd Statystyczny (GUS, the Central Statistical Office) in Monitor Polski. The second prevents the fine from exceeding 10% of turnover in the financial year preceding the year in which it is imposed. These are not two fines that can be added together.

For a fine imposed in 2026, the [GUS announcement of 9 February 2026, M.P. 2026 poz. 192](https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/M2026000019201.pdf) gives an average wage of 8,903.56 zł for 2025. Ten times that figure is 89,035.60 zł: this amount is calculated from the official announcement, not published as such by GUS. The cap of 10% of turnover still applies even when this calculation produces a higher amount.

Another [GUS announcement, M.P. 2026 poz. 232](https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/M2026000023201.pdf) gives 7,770.04 zł for 2025. It is based on the rules governing the company social benefits fund, not on the figure specified for fines under Article 73. Using it to calculate the PAD cap would therefore rely on the wrong reference figure.

The cap is not an automatic fine amount. Article 73 requires consideration of the extent and severity of the violation, the number of non-compliant products or services, and the number of people affected. For services, the punishable failure includes a lack of accessibility in those covered by Articles 12 to 19, including e-commerce under Article 18. The administrative decision is made by the president of the PFRON management board or the competent supervisory authority.

The fine is payable within 14 days after the decision becomes final, into the account of the Fundusz Dostępności, the accessibility fund that receives the proceeds. The law provides for enforcement under the rules of administrative enforcement. This does not mean that an initial finding of non-compliance makes the amount immediately payable: a decision must first be issued and become final.

Why should you not use the fines for public-sector websites?

The Act of 26 April 2024, which applies to economic operators, is not the [Polish Act of 4 April 2019, Dz.U. 2019 poz. 848](https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/D2019000084801.pdf) on the digital accessibility of public entities’ websites and applications. Both laws concern accessibility, but their scope, enforcement mechanisms and maximum fines are not interchangeable.

Under the 2019 framework, Article 19 provides for fines of up to 10,000 zł for a persistent failure to meet accessibility requirements and up to 5,000 zł for failures concerning the accessibility statement or the BIP page, the Public Information Bulletin used by public entities. A failure is persistent when no improvement is found during three consecutive inspections. The fine is imposed by an administrative decision of the minister responsible for digital affairs.

For an e-commerce service covered by the PAD, it would therefore be a mistake to cite the 10,000 zł and 5,000 zł limits as though they were its applicable fines. You must first identify the applicable law, then the nature of the service, any exclusions and the procedure actually initiated.

This content is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. To determine which framework applies to a specific service or assess an ongoing procedure, consult a lawyer qualified in Polish law. A technical assessment, including an automated scan such as the one offered by Inclaria, can help identify what needs to be checked; it cannot settle that legal classification.