Supreme Court Rules Against Trading Ban Loopholes via Cultural Corners

The Polish Supreme Court has ruled that setting up a reading corner inside a store does not exempt it from the Sunday trading ban, closing a loophole used by retailers.

End of Trading Ban Evasion

A store cannot bypass the trading ban simply by setting up a book nook and seating inside its premises. The Supreme Court has confirmed that additional cultural activity conducted within a retail facility does not alter its core character.

The case concerned a store that remained open on Sundays covered by the trading ban, citing an exception for retail facilities located in establishments conducting activities in fields including culture. A readers’ club was established in the store. In a judgment dated June 10, 2026, case file III KK 26/26, the Supreme Court ruled that such a solution does not permit legal trading on Sundays.

Book Corners Do Not Transform Stores

The manner in which the exception to the trading ban—defined in Article 6 paragraph 1 point 10 of the Act on the Restriction of Trading on Sundays and Holidays and Certain Other Days—is understood is of key importance. The provision allows trading in retail facilities located in establishments conducting activities in the fields of culture, sports, education, tourism, and recreation.

However, this does not mean that every store that additionally begins conducting cultural activity automatically falls under the exception. The Supreme Court pointed out precisely this distinction. The exception applies to a retail facility located within an establishment conducting a specific activity, rather than a store that itself begins additionally performing certain tasks in that scope. In practice, this means that a bookshelf, armchairs, or a designated reading corner do not turn a store into a library, reading room, or other cultural facility.

Precedents in Supreme Court Rulings

The latest ruling fits into the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding attempts to exploit exceptions to the trading ban. The National Labor Inspectorate (PIP) indicates that the Supreme Court took a similar stance in judgments from November 16, 2023 (case file I KK 346/23) and July 10, 2024 (case file V KK 491/23).

In both cases, it was crucial that merely creating additional space in the store or conducting activities that could be considered cultural was not sufficient to change the primary character of the facility.

Strict Interpretation of Exceptions

The National Labor Inspectorate notes that violating the trading ban remains a frequent problem. In 2025, irregularities were found during 33.2 percent of inspections concerning compliance with trading restrictions. For inspected large-format stores, this figure reached 41.1 percent, and for smaller stores, it stood at 32.5 percent.

Irregularities concerned both employees and individuals employed on other bases. PIP indicates that one of the main problems is the improper use of exceptions provided for in the act. The Chief Labor Inspector emphasizes that exceptions to the trading ban cannot be interpreted broadly, and the latest Supreme Court verdict serves as further confirmation of this stance.

Sunday Trading Rules in 2026

The trading ban does not apply to all Sundays. Four additional trading Sundays are scheduled for 2026, with the next one falling on August 30, 2026. Restrictions apply on all other Sundays under the act. For entrepreneurs, this means that simply finding an additional activity that can be classified as cultural, sports, or educational is not enough to open a store on Sunday.

The Supreme Court clearly indicates that the actual character of the facility determines the application of the exception, rather than the creation of additional activity within the store intended to justify trading on prohibited days.

Legal Basis

Article 6 paragraph 1 point 10 of the Act of January 10, 2018, on the Restriction of Trading on Sundays and Holidays and Certain Other Days (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 301).

Judgment of the Supreme Court of June 10, 2026, case file III KK 26/26.