Przejdź do treści

For authors

Law Enforcement Review

Periodical specialising in court enforcement proceedings in civil cases

Periodical for experts

Our goals

„Law Enforcement Review” (PPE, Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego) is a scientific journal. According to the list of Ministry of Education and Science of December 1, 2021, PPE is on the list of scored journals (20 points). „Law Enforcement Review” is the only Polish periodical specialising in court enforcement proceedings in civil cases. It is a prestigious source published for many years and enjoying a big and loyal readership of court executive officers, judges, lawyers, legal advisers, as well as staff from banks and other businesses and institutions dealing with debt enforcement proceedings.

Our content

PPE publishes articles, glosses, opinions, studies, reports, and reviews on the structure of various enforcement bodies and authorities, their jurisdictions, enforcement proceedings and proceedings to secure claims. It also deals with historical studies of the institution of the court executive officer and other enforcement bodies and authorities acting in civil cases, as well as comparative legal studies of the enforcement systems in other countries.

In the near term

„Law Enforcement Review” (PPE, Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego) is a scientific journal. We are currently, inter alia, trying to become included in the Scopus database and internationalise the PPE content.

We co-operate with experts from all over the world

Editor-in-chief: dr. hab. Robert Kulski, prof. UŁ
Scientific board: prof. dr Elena Borisova, prof. dr Laura Ervo, prof. dr hab. Svetlana Fursa, prof. dr Yevhen Fursa, prof. Viktória Harsági, prof. dr hab. Andrzej Jakubecki, prof. dr hab. Vytautas Nekrošius, prof. dr Álvaro Pérez Ragone, prof. Joan Picó i Junoy, prof. Ricardo Sichel, dr John Sorabji, prof. Dmitriy Toumanov, prof. dr Vladimir Yarkov, dr Tomasz Banach, dr Anna Barańska, prof. UŁ dr hab. Michał Krakowiak, dr Rafał Łyszczek, dr Mariusz Sorysz
Editorial office:
Niepodległości 703A,
81-853 Sopot
Phone: +48 664 962 310
Become one of our authors

We would love to co-operate with theoreticians and practitioners alike: researchers, judges, court executive officers, and legal advisers. We are interested in different perspectives. We would like to reach the largest audiences possible and appeal to various legal communities.

Take some time to see what we’ve got:

Magdalena Ruzicka
Commissioning editor
+48 664 962 310


Rules for notes and guidelines for citing sources in texts prepared for Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego
The article should be documented in a diligent and thorough manner. Each note ends with a period.
The article should have footnotes, numbered in order.
Any citation or reference (to a manual, commentary, article, etc.) should come with a footnote.

Publication rules

„Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego” accepts articles, glosses, studies, reviews, reports, and opinions.
The texts submitted should not exceed:
– for articles, studies, and opinions: 70 000 characters with spaces (including footnotes);
– for glosses: 32 000 characters with spaces (including footnotes);
– for reviews: 18 000 characters with spaces (including footnotes);
– for reports: 7 500 characters with spaces (including footnotes).
The texts should be submitted in electronic format (Microsoft Word files) to e-mails sent at: or
The submissions should include a separate file with author info (in particular: academic degree/title, profession, phone number, e-mail address, home address), the declaration of having read and understood the principles as regards the ghostwriting firewall, the full bibliography of all the sources referenced in the article, and the summary (maximum one page) and keywords (three to five). Research fellows are asked to indicate their home university. Titles of studies should be concise. The editorial staff reserve the right to shorten or change the titles with authors’ permission.
The notes at the bottom of pages (footnotes) should be used in the texts. In the case of reviews and reports, the number of the footnotes should be kept to a minimum.
Acronyms are accepted as long as they are explained in the footnotes.
In the case of glosses, the thesis of the ruling glossed should be given along with the place of its publication. If the ruling has not been published, or if the thesis has been formulated by the author of the gloss, it should be clearly indicated.
Boldface can be used in order to emphasise key theses or questions discussed. Phrases in foreign languages (e.g. prima facie, de lege lata) should be in italics, whereas quotations should be given only in quotation marks. Quotations within quotations are marked with angle quotes («…»).
Materials submitted should comply with the specific character of the bibliography layout used in Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego. The font size for the main body of a text should be 12; for footnotes – 10, whereas the line spacing should be 1.5. Texts may be divided into sections and subsections. They both may have subtitles.
All the materials submitted to Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego are reviewed. Should the reviewers suggest corrections are needed, the text will be published on condition that the author makes the corrections.
The materials accepted for publication are then prepared by the editorial staff. The editing consists in correcting linguistic and logical errors, as well as ensuring proper terminology and documentation are used. Authors receive printouts for consultation. The text is published when the author has sent the corrections or accepted the text ‘as is’.
The editors reserve the right to reject submissions which fail to comply with the minimum requirements for legal texts, or if the subject matter of the materials submitted fall outside the scope of the journal’s interest.
The materials submitted are not returned to their authors.

The footnote should look like this

if one author and one source are cited for the first time:
J. Kowalski, Prawo cywilne, Warszawa 2010, s. 10 i n.
(where ‘s’ – ‘page’; ‘i n.’ – ‘and following pages’
if one author and one source are cited for the second (third, fourth…) time, and only one work is referenced:
J. Kowalski, op. cit, s. 10 i n.
if one author and one source are cited for the second (third, fourth…) time, but the author’s other works are also referenced, first word(s) of the work(s) should be given to make it possible to distinguish between different works, e.g.
J. Kowalski, Prawo…op. cit, s. 12.;
J. Kowalski, System…op. cit, s. 14. (the authors second work: J. Kowalski, System prawa cywilnego, Warszawa 2010, s. 15.)
if a work is cited which was written with one or several authors as editors, the footnote should include the name of the author responsible for a given excerpt, e.g. J. Kowalski – the editor and the author of the quote in: Prawo pracy, Warszawa 2009, and the footnote should read as follows:
J. Kowalski [w:] Prawo pracy, pod red. J. Kowalskiego, Warszawa 2009, s. 15.
If the same work is referenced again, the shortened footnote should be as follows:
J. Kowalski [w:] Prawo…op. cit, s. 16.
if a work is cited which was written by several authors, the footnote should include the name of the author responsible for a given excerpt, e.g. J. Kowalski, M. Nowak, Prawo pracy, Warszawa 2009, and the footnote should read as follows:
J. Kowalski [w:] J. Kowalski, M. Nowak, Prawo pracy, Warszawa 2009, s. 15.
If the same work is referenced again the shortened footnote should be as follows:
J. Kowalski [w:] J. Kowalski, M. Nowak, op. cit, s. 16.
if a scientific article is cited which was published in a scientific journal, the following items should be given: first name initial(s), surname, title of article, name of journal (full, or shortened if an acronym is used and given in the list of acronyms), year of publication, number of issue (nr/z), and number of pages, e.g.
J. Kowalski, Wady oświadczeń woli, Państwo i Prawo 2010, z. 1, s. 13;
J. Kowalski, Wady oświadczeń woli, PiP 2010, z. 1, s. 13.
if a court ruling is cited, the footnote should include the following: name of court, type of ruling, or notification that it is a resolution, date of issue, reference number, and place of publication (position or number of page), e.g.
SN w wyroku z dnia 13 lutego 2007 r., I C 21/07, OSNC 2007/10/116.
If the ruling has not been published, the ‘niepubl.’ (not published) abbreviation should be used.

List of adopted abbreviations

BMS – „Biuletyn Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości”
BSN – „Biuletyn Sądu Najwyższego”
GP – „Gazeta Prawna”
GS – „Gazeta Sądowa”
KPP – „Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego”
M.Prawn. – „Monitor Prawniczy”
NP – „Nowe Prawo”
OSA – „Orzecznictwo Sądów Apelacyjnych”
OSN – „Orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego, Izby Cywilnej i Izby Karnej” (1953–1961), „Orzecznictwo Izby Cywilnej Sądu Najwyższego” (1962)
OSNC – „Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego. Izba Cywilna” (1994–)
OSNCP – „Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego. Izba Cywilna oraz Izba Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych” (1963–1981), „Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego. Izba Cywilna i Administracyjna oraz Izba Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych”
OSNKW – „Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego. Izba Karna i Izba Wojskowa”
OSNP – „Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego. Izba Administracyjna, Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych” (1994–2002), „Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego. Izba Pracy, Ubezpieczeń Społecznych i Spraw Publicznych” (2003–)
OSP – „Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich i Komisji Arbitrażowych” (1957–1989), „Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich” (1990–)
OTK ZU – „Orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. Zbiór Urzędowy”
PE – „Problemy Egzekucji” (1999–2002)
PES – „Problemy Egzekucji Sądowej” (1993–1999)
PiP – „Państwo i Prawo”
PPC – „Polski Proces Cywilny”
PPE – „Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego” (2003–)
PPH – „Przegląd Prawa Handlowego”
PPW – „Prawo Papierów Wartościowych”
Pr.Bank. – „Prawo Bankowe”
Pr.Spółek – „Prawo Spółek”
Prok. i Pr. – „Prokuratura i Prawo”
PS – „Przegląd Sądowy”
PUG – „Przegląd Ustawodawstwa Gospodarczego”
R.Pr. – „Radca Prawny”
RPEiS – „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny”
Sam.Teryt. – „Samorząd Terytorialny”
SP – „Studia Prawnicze”
SC – „Studia Cywilistyczne”
ZOSN – „Zbiór Orzeczeń Sądu Najwyższego” (1917–1939, 1945–1952)

Reviewers in 2023 

dr hab. Izabella Gil, prof. UWr, Zakład Postępowania Cywilnego, Wydział Prawa, Administracji i Ekonomii Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego
dr hab. Agnieszka Góra-Błaszczykowska, prof. ASzWoj
dr hab. Andrzej Jarocha, prof. UAM, Katedra Postępowania Cywilnego, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
dr hab. Anna Kościółek, prof. UR, Zakład Postępowania Cywilnego, Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego

Peer review procedure

For each publication, at least two independent, external reviewers are appointed.
For texts written in foreign languages, at least one of the reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution founded in a country different than the author’s country of origin.
The recommended model is the double-blind review process, in which the author(s) and the reviewers do not know each other.
In other cases, the reviewers have to make and sign a representation and declare that no conflict of interests arises between them and the author(s). The conflict of interests between reviewers and authors is defined as:
– direct personal relations (family, legal relations, conflicts);
– reporting lines;
– direct scientific cooperation in the period of two years prior to preparing the review.
The review should be made in writing and conclude with an unequivocal statement as regards accepting the article for publication or rejecting it.
The rules for accepting or rejecting publications, including making footnotes and bibliography, are available on this website.
The names of the reviewers for specific publications/issues are not disclosed. The journal on its editorial page publishes the list of cooperating reviewers.

Ghostwriting firewall

Scientific integrity is one of the factors responsible for the quality of research. Readers must be confident that authors present their findings in a clear, reliable, and fair manner – irrespective of whether they are the actual authors or they solicit input from experts (natural persons or legal entities). Transparency with respect to entities involved in a publication is a reflection of the ethical integrity of researchers and the highest editorial standards. It is an unacceptable if a person makes a substantial contribution to a publication, without being properly acknowledged or disclosed as one of the authors, or if the actual contribution of an author is negligible (or the author offers no contribution whatsoever) but they are nevertheless mentioned as the author/co-author of a publication.
Therefore, the editorial staff of Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego request from authors full transparency with respect to the contribution of actual authors (with disclosing their affiliations and input, i.e. the data on who is the person responsible for the concept, guidelines, methodology, protocol, etc. applied while preparing a publication), with the responsibility for the above resting with authors submitting their manuscripts. Any cases of scientific misconduct will be disclosed to the public, including notifying relevant bodies (hiring institutions, research societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.). The editorial staff hereby obliges Authors to divulge the information on their sources of funding for their publications, as well as on the contribution of scientific and research institutions, associations, and other entities (‘financial disclosure’). The editorial office will document any cases of scientific misconduct, especially breaching and infringing the ethical principles in science.
Taking into account the aforementioned principles of the ghostwriting firewall, our authors are obliged to each time submit a relevant necessary representation to the editorial office.