GESSEL represents Nałęczów Zdrój in landmark litigation against the State Treasury of Poland

An article published by Wyborcza.biz discusses landmark proceedings involving Nałęczów Zdrój and the State Treasury of Poland. The matter concerns tax measures which, according to the company, resulted in unjustified preferential treatment of selected beverage categories and are inconsistent with both Polish and EU law, as well as with the objectives of public health policy.

Nałęczów Zdrój is represented by Piotr Schramm, Partner and Head of Litigation and Special Projects / Risk & Support at GESSEL, and Maciej Michalak, Senior Associate.

The proceedings concern, in particular, the fact that bottled mineral and spring water remains subject to Poland’s standard 23% VAT rate, while certain sweetened beverages, flavoured waters and energy drinks have benefited, or continue to benefit, from preferential tax treatment.

According to the company’s representatives, the effects of the challenged measures extend beyond tax and competition law:

“The State’s conduct in this matter is manifestly contrary to the law and cannot be justified in any way. Granting such a significant tax preference to a narrow group of undertakings directly infringes the EU VAT Directive, the Polish VAT Act, the EU Treaties and the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.”

GESSEL represents Nałęczów Zdrój in the proceedings before the Regional Court in Warsaw, where the company seeks multi-million damages from the State Treasury of Poland for losses allegedly caused by defective legislative measures. The article also discusses parallel proceedings relating to the same regulatory framework, including a complaint before the European Commission.

The article highlights arguments concerning state liability for legislative acts and the broader impact of the measures on the market and public health. According to Nałęczów Zdrój’s counsel, when adopting the VAT matrix and subsequent tax measures, the State failed to take into account their impact on public health, maintaining preferential treatment for sweetened beverages at the expense of products perceived as healthier.

As GESSEL’s lawyers emphasise:

“It is equally important to demonstrate to the court that the parliament and the government did not act in the public interest. Their decisions served solely to grant unlawful state aid to a narrow group of producers.”

The company’s counsel also point to an inconsistency between the current tax framework and the State’s declared public health policy. In their view, the measures favour products with a documented negative impact on health, while limiting the competitiveness of products perceived as healthier.

In this context, they state:

“The effect is a destructive impact of public authorities on other areas of State activity, including the implementation of public health policy based on promoting pro-health attitudes in society, including healthy eating habits.”

The matter may be significant not only for the food and beverage sector, but also for the development of case law and practice concerning state liability for legislative acts, the application of state aid rules, and the relationship between fiscal policy and public health protection.

Piotr Schramm is a Partner at GESSEL and heads the firm’s Litigation, Special Projects / Risk & Support, and Restructuring and Insolvency practices. He focuses on complex commercial disputes, strategic projects and business advisory in high-stakes matters.

Maciej Michalak is a Senior Associate at GESSEL. He focuses on commercial and corporate disputes, as well as strategic advisory at all stages of court proceedings and negotiations.

Source: “Takiego procesu jeszcze nie było. Polska pozwana za działanie na szkodę zdrowia publicznego”, Wyborcza.biz, 24 June 2026.