Cost Reimbursement in Disputes Resolved by a Court Settlement

Odredba hrvatskog Zakona o parničnom postupku (ZPP) prema kojoj svaka stranka snosi svoje troškove ako je parnica završila sudskom nagodbom u kojoj glede toga nije drukčije ugovoreno (čl. 159. st. 1. ZPP-a), odnosno odredba prema kojoj troškovi tzv. izvanparnične (pretorske, preventivne) nagodbe koja je pokušana (čl. 324. ZPP-a), ali nije uspjela ulaze u parnične troškove (čl. 159. st. 2. ZPP-a) nisu novelom ZPP-a iz 2019. pretrpjele nikakve izmjene. Nije izmijenjena ni odredba čl. 324. st. 4. ZPP-a prema kojoj troškove postupka radi zaključenja izvanparnične sudske nagodbe podmiruje podnositelj prijedloga za pokretanje tog postupka. Novelom ZPP-a iz 2019. tek se posredno interveniralo u uređenje sudskog nagodbenog troškovnog prava unošenjem u ZPP posebne odredbe o sankcioniranju stranke koja ne postupi u skladu s uputom suda da sudjeluje u pokušaju mirnog rješenja spora, u kojemu se može zaključiti i sudska nagodba (čl. 186.d). U radu se nastoji sustavno – u povijesno-komparativnoj perspektivi – prezentirati i analizirati institut sudskog nagodbenog troškovnog prava. Težište je pri tome postavljeno na uređenje naknade troškova sudske nagodbe zaključene u parničnom postupku. Posebno je, međutim, obrađena i problematika troškova postupka za zaključenje tzv. izvanparnične sudske nagodbe, ali i ona koja se tiče izvansudske nagodbe o predmetu spora, troškova umješača u slučaju zaključenja sudske nagodbe te gubitka prava na naknadu daljnjih troškova prvostupanjskog postupka zbog nepostupanja po uputi suda za pokretanje postupka mirenja. Zaključno se konstatira da je sadašnjim uređenjem nepotpuno normiran institut o kojemu je riječ te da ono ostavlja otvorenim čitav niz vrlo ozbiljnih pitanja, zbog čega je moguće njihovo različito razumijevanje i rješavanje. Zato se i naglašava važnost potrebe da stranke prigodom definiranja sadržaja sudske – parnične ili izvanparnične – nagodbe uznastoje riješiti i ključna pitanja u vezi s naknadom troškova postupka u kojemu su je zaključile, posebno u slučajevima zaključenja međunagodbe ili djelomične nagodbe. Naglašava se i važnost monitorno-facilitacijske uloge suda u upozoravanju stranaka na naznačena pitanja i na pravne posljedice njihova nerješavanja.The provision of the Croatian Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) stipulating that, unless otherwise agreed, each party in disputes resolved by a court bears its own costs (Article 159, paragraph 1 of the CCP), was not affected by the 2019 amendments to the CCP. The same is true for Article 324, which provides that the costs of the parties who attempted but failed to reach a so-called non-contentious (praetorian, preventive) settlement constitute litigation costs (Article 159 (2) CCP). Likewise, Article 324 (3), stipulating that the costs of a non-contentious settlement are borne by the initiating party, also remained unchanged. The 2019 amendments did, however, indirectly change cost-related provisions in court settlements by permitting the penalization of the party refusing the court’s invitation to take part in a mediation procedure, which may also lead to a court settlement (Article 186d). The paper takes a comparative diachronic approach to the matter of costs in court settlements, focusing on court settlements reached in the course of litigation. In addition, the issue of costs in non-contentious court settlements is also dealt with, including out-of-court settlements concerning the matter in dispute, the costs of interveners in court settlements, and the loss of the right to claim further costs of a first-instance procedure for refusing to take part in mediation. Finally, the author concludes that the latest provisions fail to comprehensively regulate the above issues, leaving many questions unanswered, which could cause discrepancies in the interpretation and application of the pertinent provisions. For this reason, the author believes it is crucial for parties reaching a settlement to agree on the manner of resolving costs-related issues, be it reached in the course of litigation or in a non-contentious procedure, particularly in the event of a interim or partial settlement. The author also contends that the court should act here as a facilitator and draw the parties’ attention to these matters and possible consequences of failing to resolve them