The Smart Contract – Problems with Taking Evidence in Polish Civil Proceedings in the Light of European Regulations




Smart Contract, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Document, Polish Civil Law, Polish Jurisdiction, European Law


In recent years, we have observed an amazing development of new technologies; many contracts come into effect without paper documents being signed. New possibilities have appeared, for example, the smart contract (also known as the digital contract or blockchain). In some cases, there is a dispute between the participants in the smart contract, e.g., as to the manner of its implementation. A court case might be necessary to resolve the dispute. As in any dispute, evidence proceedings will have to be conducted. The smart contract should appear as a proof. However, due to its unusual nature and complicated status under substantive law, as well as the fact that it is produced by new technological solutions, it is essential to determine its admissibility as evidence. The procedural law regulates in detail only traditional evidence. The smart contract has not been regulated in procedural regulations, therefore, its status needs to be established in the context of the existing documentary evidence. This article aims to contribute to the discussion on the status of smart contracts in civil court proceedings. Primarily, it should be determined whether the smart contract can be considered a document within the meaning of procedural law. In the Polish legal system, the document is defined as an information carrier whose content can be read. Accordingly, the smart contract meets the definition criteria. However, in the absence of provisions governing the manner of taking documentary evidence, it may be difficult to actually take such evidence and establish its value. The article also draws attention to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93 / EC. Its art. 46 refers to the legal effectiveness of electronic documents and prohibits discrimination against evidence from such documents, which should undoubtedly contribute to the acceptance of a smart contract as evidence in civil proceedings.

Author Biography

Berenika Kaczmarek-Templin, Wrocław University of Science and Technology

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Faculty of Management,
Wroclaw University of Technology and Science
Ul. Łukasiewicza 5,
50-367 Wrocław


Bierekoven, C., Bazin, P. and Kozlowski T. (2004). Electronic signatures in German, French and Polish law perspective. Digital evidence and electronic signature law review, 1, 7-13, DOI:

Catchlove, P. (2017). Smart Contracts: A New Era of Contract Use. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI:

Christidis, K. and Devetsikiotis, M. (2016). Blockchain and smart contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access, 4, 2292-2303. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2566339

Cox M. and Battista, J. (2005). Deinococcus radiodurans – the consummante survivor. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 3, 882-892. DOI:

di Angelo, M., Soare A. and Salzer, G. (2019). Smart Contracts in View of the Civil Code. In: Symposium on Applied Computing. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 392–399. DOI:

Distributed Ledger Technology: beyond block chain. Available at: (accessed on 18.09.2022).

Idelberger, F. (2018). Connected contracts reloaded — smart contracts as contractual networks. In: Grundmann S. (ed.), European Contract Law in the Digital Age (pp. 205-236), Cambridge–Antwerp–Portland: Intersentia. DOI: 10.1017/9781780686431

Kaczmarek-Templin, B. (2012). Dowód z dokumentu elektronicznego w procesie cywilnym. Warszawa: C. H. Beck.

Kaczmarek-Templin, B. (2021). Dowód z dokumentu. In: Ł. Błaszczak (ed.): Dowody w postępowaniu cywilnym. Warszawa: C. H. Beck.

Kasprzyk, K. (2018). The concept of smart contracts from the legal perspective. Review of Comparative Law, 34(3), 101–118. DOI:

Kõlvart, M., Poola, M. and Rull, A. (2016). Smart Contracts. In: Kerikmäe, T., Rull, A. (eds.): The Future of Law and eTechnologies (pp. 133-147), Cham: Springer. DOI:

Lauslahti, K., Mattila, J. and Seppälä T. (2017). Smart Contracts – How will Blockchain Technology Affect Contractual Practices? ETLA Reports, No 68. Available at: (accessed on 18.09.2022).

Legal and Regulatory Framework of Blockchains and Smart Contracts. A thematic report prepared by the European Union Blockchain Observatory and Forum, 27.09.2019. Available at: (accessed on 10.03.2023).

Lessing, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books, Inc..

Luu, L., Chu, D. H., Olickel, H., Saxena, P. and Hobor, A. (2016). Making smart contracts smarter. In: CCS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 254–269. DOI:

Nguyen, K. (2018). Certification of eIDAS trust services and new global transparency trends. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit, 42(7), 424–428. DOI:

O’Hara, K. (2017). Smart Contracts – Dumb Idea. IEEE Internet Computing, 21(2), 97-101. DOI: 10.1109/MIC.2017.48

Pecyna, M. and Behan, A. (2020). Smart contracts – nowa technologia prawa umów? Transformacje Prawa Prywatnego 2020, No 3. Available at: (accessed on 10.03.2023).

Polański, P. (2015). Towards the single digital market for e-identification and trust services. Computer law & security review, 31(6), 773-781. DOI:

Raskin, M. (2017). The Law and Legality of Smart Contracts. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 305, 305-341. DOI:

Savelyev, A. (2016). Contract Law 2.0: „Smart” Contracts as the Beggining of the End of Classic Contract Law. Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 71/LAW/2016. DOI:

Szabo, N. (1996). Smart Contracts: Building Blocks for Digital Markets. EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought, vol. 16.

Szabo, N. (1997). Formalizing and Securing Relationship on Public Networks. First Monday, 2(9). DOI:

Tjong Tjin Tai, E. (2017). Formalizing contract law for smart contracts. Tilburg Private Law Working Paper, No 6. DOI:

Weber, R. H. (2018). “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose” – what about code and law? Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of Technology Law and Practice, 34(4), 701-706. DOI:

Zöller, R. and Greger, R. (2004). ZPO Kommentar. Köln: Ottoschmidt.




How to Cite

Kaczmarek-Templin, B. (2023). The Smart Contract – Problems with Taking Evidence in Polish Civil Proceedings in the Light of European Regulations. Bratislava Law Review, 7(1), 65–76.



Discussion Papers