In the second half of February 2026, the draft amendment to the e-Delivery Act resurfaced, accompanied by an announcement from the Minister of Digital Affairs regarding the establishment of a dedicated e-Delivery e-Delivery Working Group.
The mandate of the Working Group is to drive broader adoption of the system and eliminate the operational and regulatory barriers currently hindering its implementation. We will address the work and composition of the Working Group in a separate publication.
Most public commentary on the draft amendment has focused on the new obligations concerning communication with the public administration. However, far less attention has been given to the implications for communication between bussines, their clients, and private individuals – an omission that, in our view, distorts the overall regulatory impact of the proposal.
Extension of the Act’s material scope
The original Act was primarily designed to regulate the provision of e-Delivery services in communication with public entities. The current draft significantly broadens this scope by extending selected regulatory provisions to non-public entities. If adopted, the amendment will materially affect correspondence practices of entities registered in the National Court Register (KRS) and the Central Register and Information on Economic Activity (CEIDG).
The draft introduces a new legal category: non-public entities performing public tasks.
This category will be subject to specific regulatory requirements, closely aligned with those applicable to public entities – particularly with respect to registration and information obligations. This development is closely linked to the introduction of the new Public Entities Catalogue (KPP), established under the newly added Chapter 1a of the Act. The Catalogue will include not only public entities, but also non-public entities performing public tasks. The creation of a centralized register of public entities is both justified and necessary.
It is also reasonable to include private entities that permanently perform public tasks. However, the proposal goes further by defining rules for the use od e-Delivery by entities that only temporarily carry out public activities. In our assessment, this extension is excessive. Such entities should retain the freedom to select their service provider and determine the manner in which they use e-Delivery services within the commercial market framework.
Mandatory use of e-Delivery for outbound correspondence by business
In practice, the draft imposes an obligation on entities registered in KRS and CEIDG to use e-Delivery when sending correspondence to public entities. Until now, initiating communication allowed for flexibility in choosing the communication channel. Moreover, as the possibility of initiating many proceedings via the ePUAP platform is being phased out, e-Delivery has effectively become the sole electronic communication channel available to citizens in their dealings with public administration.
Legal effect of electronic delivery in the commercial market
The expanded scope of the Act also introduces selected rules governing the delivery of correspondence between non-public entities — including businesses, their customers, and private individuals. The proposed changes strengthen the legal effectiveness of electronic delivery in relations involving private entities and significantly limit the possibility of evading receipt. This represents a structural shift in the risk allocation model for correspondence in the commercial sphere.
Possibility of holding multiple e-Delivery addresses
The draft amendment provides for non-public entities to hold multiple e-Delivery addresses established by the Minister of Digital Affairs. One of these must be designated as the primary address for communication with public ententities. This solution reflects the operational realities of larger organizations while preserving clarity and certainty in communication with public administration.
Conclusion
It is a positive development that the draft amendment has returned to consultation and that its adoption is planned within a relatively short timeframe. In many respects, the proposal addresses practical concerns raised by system users and introduces necessary adjustments. Nevertheless, certain areas — despite the sound intentions expressed in the explanatory memorandum — require further consultation and refinement. The draft should be placed on the agenda of the inaugural meeting of the ministerial Working Group without delay.
The proposed regulations will substantially alter the way e-Delivery is used by businesses registered in KRS and CEIDG, as well as by regulated professionals and other trusted professions. Given the practical and legal consequences of these changes, these stakeholders require a comprehensive and transparent discussion of the forthcoming regulatory framework.
Publication date: 4.03.2026