How to appeal a SENT or RMPD penalty step by step

At 01:50 on 26 July 2023 a truck carrying live poultry from Slovakia was stopped for a check. The SENT filing stated 11,650 kg gross, the CMR waybill stated 7,170 kg. The 20,000 zł penalty was imposed thirteen months later, on 19 August 2024, and the second instance upheld it. The company went to court. The Regional Administrative Court in Kraków quashed both decisions, and on 14 July 2026 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the authority's cassation complaint. Three years, and the company won.

This article walks through that road step by step and explains why an appeal against an RMPD penalty is not the same as an appeal against a SENT one.

In brief: an RMPD penalty is reviewed under the Code of Administrative Procedure and a SENT penalty under the Tax Ordinance, and that is not a formality · both appeals run on 14 days, and a court complaint on 30 · an RMPD appeal needs no reasoning at all, while a SENT appeal must set out objections, the substance of the demand and the evidence · a court complaint stays enforcement of an RMPD penalty automatically, and stays a SENT penalty not at all until security has been accepted · an RMPD penalty has one ground for waiver, a SENT penalty two, but the second runs into State aid rules · penalties from a single roadside check cannot exceed 12,000 zł in total.

An appeal goes to the second instance authority within 14 days of service of the decision. If the second instance upholds the penalty, a complaint to a regional administrative court remains, and that runs on 30 days. After that only a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court is left.

Why RMPD and SENT penalties run on different tracks

The difference lies not in the amount but in which code governs the proceedings. The Road Transport Act excludes the Tax Ordinance from its own penalties (art. 93 ust. 7 and art. 94 ust. 9), so an RMPD penalty runs under the Code of Administrative Procedure. The SENT Act does the opposite: in matters it does not regulate itself, the Tax Ordinance applies to its penalties (art. 26 ust. 5).

Three practical differences follow, and each one costs money if it is not known in advance.

How an RMPD appeal differs from a SENT appeal

The difference in what the letter must say is the largest and the least known. The Code of Administrative Procedure is explicit: an appeal requires no detailed reasoning, and it is enough that dissatisfaction with the decision follows from it (art. 128). A single sentence formally suffices.

The Tax Ordinance asks for more. An appeal should contain objections against the decision, define the substance and scope of the demand and indicate the evidence supporting it (art. 222). A one sentence letter in a SENT case is a defective letter.

The practical conclusion follows. In an RMPD case, meet the 14 days even with a short letter and send the full reasoning afterwards. In a SENT case that will not work, so the substance has to be ready from day one.

Whether a court complaint stays enforcement

Here lies the costliest trap, because the two procedures answer the question in opposite ways.

Under RMPD a complaint stays enforcement. A final decision becomes enforceable 30 days after service, but the authority that issued it stays enforcement of its own motion once the party files a complaint with an administrative court (art. 93 ust. 2). Nothing has to be applied for and nothing has to be paid in.

Under SENT a complaint stays nothing. A final decision is enforceable (Tax Ordinance art. 239e). The first instance authority will stay it only once an application is filed and the authority accepts security for the obligation together with default interest, or once a compulsory mortgage or a tax lien is entered of the authority's own motion (art. 239f § 1). The application is dealt with within 14 days at the latest, and if the authority misses that deadline, enforcement is stayed until the decision on the application is served (§ 2).

One difference favours the payer: a non-final SENT decision is not enforceable at all unless it has been given immediate enforceability (art. 239a). While the appeal is pending, nothing is collected.

What to argue to win

The available grounds are few and narrow. There is no choosing between them, because each penalty has its own provision.

RMPD has a single ground. Proceedings are discontinued where the carrier had no influence over the breach and the breach followed from events it could not have foreseen (art. 92c ust. 1 pkt 1). An employee's mistake does not fit, and the courts say so plainly. A lost connection, a registry outage or a locator broken by its operator do fit, and each has to be proved with documents from third parties.

One more objection is worth raising even though authorities currently reject it. Carriers invoke art. 189f § 1 of the Code, which allows an authority to refrain from a penalty where the breach is of negligible gravity. Authorities answer that chapter IVa of the Code does not apply, because art. 92c of the Road Transport Act is a separate provision within the meaning of art. 189a § 2 pkt 2. On 14 July 2026, however, the Supreme Administrative Court referred that question to a panel of seven judges (order II GSK 255/26), and as of 13 October 2026 no resolution exists. Without that objection on the file, a favourable resolution cannot be used in your own case.

SENT has two grounds, and the second one surprises. An authority may refrain from the penalty where the important interest of the consignor, the carrier or the public interest requires it (art. 22 ust. 3, art. 24 ust. 3). A second gate follows: refraining is possible only where it does not constitute State aid or falls within de minimis aid (art. 26 ust. 3). Even a convincing argument about the carrier's interest has to pass the State aid regime as well.

How much a single check can cost

A ceiling exists and few people know it. The penalties imposed for breaches found during a single roadside check cannot exceed 12,000 zł in total (art. 92a ust. 3 of the Road Transport Act). That covers penalties under that Act, so it covers the RMPD penalty.

A SENT penalty comes from a different Act and does not count against that ceiling. A check that finds both a discrepancy in a SENT filing and a shortcoming in an RMPD one can therefore end above 12,000 zł. What a specific combination comes to is worked out by the SENT and RMPD penalty calculator.

What the case law shows

Winning is possible, and not only in theory.

A case won. A check on 26 July 2023, a discrepancy in the gross weight of goods under CN 2710, a 20,000 zł penalty dated 19 August 2024. The court in Kraków quashed the decisions and on 14 July 2026 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the authority's cassation complaint. The judgment is final.

A second win, on GPS. The carrier produced app screenshots showing the locator switched on, and the authority refused to examine why the data never reached the system. The court in Kraków quashed both decisions on 13 May 2026. What that looked like step by step is set out in the article on a gap in the GPS signal.

Cases lost. An employee's error in a trailer plate: the court in Rzeszów dismissed the complaint on 4 August 2026. One wrong character in a semi trailer plate: the court in Lublin dismissed the complaint on 12 February 2026. Data corrected 28 minutes after entry but already during the check: the court in Lublin dismissed the complaint on 2 June 2026. The price of one wrong field is covered separately in the article on the penalty for one mistake.

The pattern is simple. Cases are won where the party showed with documents that the cause lay outside the company. They are lost where the argument was human inattention.

What to do

1. 1Record the date the decision was served. The 14 days run from that date, not from the date on the decision.
2. 2File the appeal through the authority that issued the decision, because that is the route to the second instance.
3. 3In a SENT case put objections, the substance of the demand and the evidence into the appeal. In an RMPD case a short letter will do, with the reasoning sent afterwards.
4. 4Gather evidence from third parties rather than your own statements: correspondence with the locator operator, confirmation of a registry outage, a service report.
5. 5File the court complaint within 30 days if the second instance upheld the penalty.
6. 6In a SENT case file an application to stay enforcement together with the complaint and offer security. The complaint alone will not stay anything.
7. 7Raise the art. 189f objection even where the authority rejects it, because without it on the file the future resolution of the seven judges will be of no use to you.

What not to do

• ✗Do not let the 14 days pass while gathering evidence. The deadline runs from service and is not extended.
• ✗Do not send a one sentence letter in a SENT case. The Tax Ordinance requires objections, the substance of the demand and evidence.
• ✗Do not assume that a court complaint alone protects the money in a SENT case. Without security it does not.
• ✗Do not build a defence on the breach being minor. The statute does not grade the gravity of a discrepancy, and the courts confirm it.
• ✗Do not rely on somebody else's decision in a similar case without a copy of it. A court does not examine what was never produced.
• ✗Do not delay over GPS evidence. The register deletes locator data after twelve months, which is covered in a separate article on retention periods.

Where technology belongs in this

An appeal begins not on the day of the decision but on the day of the carriage. The party that wins is the one that still holds the set a year later: the reference number, the registry confirmation, the CMR the data came from and the recorded locator positions. An authority is shown documents, not recollections.

Sigil keeps that set with every declaration and files under the carrier's own account, so the party making the declaration remains the carrier. The GPS history PDF is drawn from our own position records, so it can still be produced once the register has deleted its copy. The gap is measurable: the register deletes RMPD filings 2 years after the end of the year of filing, while a penalty may be imposed for 5 years. How a deposit taken at the roadside is recovered is covered in the article on RMPD and SENT deposits.

Sigil handles RMPD declarations. A SENT filing is made by the consignor or the consignee of the goods, and Sigil does not act as a representative in administrative proceedings.