Can a recorded conversation be evidence in a Polish court? And how to transcribe it
Yes. In Polish civil proceedings a conversation recorded by a participant can be evidence: the court admits it under art. 308 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the Supreme Court held in II CSK 478/15 that a covert recording of one's own conversation is not excluded outright; admission and credibility are decided by the court in the specific case. A transcript helps read and quote the recording but does not replace it.
This is not legal advice. It describes the law in Poland and civil proceedings — family cases, claims for payment, employment disputes — because those are the recordings people bring to us. Criminal proceedings have their own rules, and every case has its own circumstances, so decide whether and how to present a recording together with your lawyer.
A participant's recording and eavesdropping are two different things
The first question a lawyer asks is who did the recording. Recording a conversation you took part in is a different thing from recording two other people without their knowledge. In Poland the latter is a criminal offence under art. 267 § 3 of the Criminal Code — installing or using a listening device to obtain information one is not entitled to. A participant is entitled to the content of their own conversation, so that provision does not apply to them.
That does not make recording without the other side's knowledge consequence-free. The person recorded may seek protection of their personal rights, and a civil court — more on this below — weighs the circumstances and purpose of the recording. Usually, though, recording one's own conversation is simply lawful in Poland, and the argument is about how much it is worth as evidence.
How the court assesses a recording
Art. 308 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code has the court take evidence from a document containing a sound recording by applying, as appropriate, the rules on inspection and on documents. In other words: the court listens to the recording and assesses it like any other piece of evidence, on its own conviction and against the whole of the material. No provision excludes a recording of one's own conversation in advance.
In case II CSK 478/15 the Polish Supreme Court held that a recording made without the other party's knowledge and consent is not inadmissible as such. The court weighs two things: whether the circumstances in which the recording was made point to a serious breach of the principles of social coexistence, and the right to a fair hearing of the party relying on it — its ability to prove its case. In practice, lawyers and courts also look at whether the recording is complete, whether it has been edited, and whether the other side can respond to it. A recording that cuts off at a convenient point, or one with passages removed, loses credibility — even where it is formally admitted.
- Completeness: the whole recording, from switching on to switching off, not an excerpt.
- The original: the file as it was created, and the device it was recorded on, kept.
- Circumstances: where, when and why you recorded — that information goes into your filing, not into the file itself.
- The chance to respond: the other side has to know exactly what the recording is meant to prove, and be able to answer it.
Then what is the transcript for
The evidence is the recording. The written record is the guide to it: it lets a lawyer read in fifteen minutes what would take an hour to listen to, quote the exact words in a filing, and point at the minute they were said. In Polish practice lawyers attach a written record of the recording to the motion to admit it, because the court and the other side have to know what facts the recording is meant to prove — and that cannot be written without the text.
The record has to be verbatim. A smoothed version with the hesitations and repetitions gone is a different document from the recording, and every difference between text and audio will work against you. So the “erm”, the unfinished sentences and the swearing stay. If someone started the same sentence three times, the record has three beginnings.
How to prepare the recording and the record, step by step
- Secure the original. Do not edit the file, trim it or rename it. Make a copy and work on the copy.
- Document the date. The audio alone does not say when it was made — take a screenshot of the recording list on the phone, save the file's properties, or keep the message the recording arrived in.
- Transcribe the recording verbatim. Automatic transcription takes a few minutes; you upload the copy and get text split by speaker, with the time of every passage.
- Check the record against the audio. The model can mishear a surname, an amount or a word spoken in the background — fix those in the editor while listening to that passage. Correct nothing beyond what was actually said.
- Name the speakers the way you will name them in the filing. Where you are not sure who is speaking, leave a generic label — a guess is one more difference the other side can point at.
- Download the record with timings (the SRT file) and a reading version (TXT). Time in the record is minute and second from the start of the file; the date and circumstances you describe separately.
- Hand your lawyer the original recording, the copy, the record and a note on the circumstances. They decide in what form and at what stage the recording goes to the court.
The TXT file carries a note that the text was generated by AI (the timed SRT file does not). Do not hide it — the lawyer and the court will compare the record with the recording anyway, and disclosing where the text came from is part of presenting the evidence honestly.
What the record will not do
- It will not give the date or time of the conversation. It only has time counted from the start of the file.
- It will not make a trimmed or edited recording credible. The court listens to the audio; it does not read the text instead.
- It will not settle who is speaking where the voices cannot be told apart — the speaker split is automatic, and an argument between several people at once needs corrections.
- It will not replace a conversation with your lawyer about whether the recording is worth presenting at all.
Can I record a conversation without the other person knowing?
If you are taking part in it — in Poland, as a rule, yes; the offence under art. 267 of the Criminal Code is eavesdropping on conversations one is not part of. The person recorded may still seek protection of their personal rights, and a civil court takes the circumstances of the recording into account when weighing the evidence. That is the general rule, not an assessment of your situation — ask a lawyer for that.
Does a voice message from a messenger count too?
Yes, in Poland it is also a document containing a sound recording within the meaning of art. 308 of the Civil Procedure Code. Export the message as an audio file, keep the chat it arrived in — the date and sender are visible there — and transcribe it the same way as a recorded conversation.
Can I file the transcript alone, without the recording?
Not a good idea. The evidence is the recording; the text alone is your claim about what the recording contains, and the other side can simply dispute it. In Polish practice the record is filed together with the recording, as its content, not instead of it.