Ending a court case without a judgment in Lithuania: who bears the expenses

A case can end before the court decides the dispute on the merits. The claimant can withdraw the claim or waive it. The parties can conclude a settlement. And the court itself, including at the defendant’s request, terminates the case or leaves the claim unexamined where there is a ground set out in the law. These routes have different consequences: after some you can go to court again, after others you cannot. When a case ends without a judgment on the merits, the court allocates litigation expenses by looking at the parties’ conduct in the proceedings and at why the expenses arose. If the claimant waives the claim, part of the court fee is refunded.

How the court approves a settlement and how to allocate the expenses in it, we wrote separately: court-approved settlement. On court orders for payment and the debtor’s objections, see our article on the court order and court fee. This article covers the other ways of ending a case without a judgment.

Withdrawing a claim and waiving a claim are not the same

Withdrawal of the claim. Until the court has sent a copy of the claim to the defendant, the claimant may withdraw it. Later, withdrawal is possible only with the defendant’s consent and no later than the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 139(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, CPK). The court records the withdrawal by a ruling leaving the claim unexamined. If the withdrawal arrives before the claim has been accepted, the court declares the claim not filed and returns it (CPK Article 139(2)).

Waiver of the claim. At any stage of the proceedings the claimant may state, in writing or orally, that they waive the claim. The court adopts a ruling accepting the waiver and terminates the case (CPK Article 140(1)). A written waiver must state that the claimant knows its consequences. If it does not, the court sends a notice explaining them. If the claimant does not confirm the waiver within seven days of the notice being sent, they are treated as not having waived the claim (CPK Article 140(1)). The court may also refuse to accept a waiver, but it must then give a reasoned ruling (CPK Article 140(5)).

The main difference is what remains afterwards:

  • once a case is terminated, you may not go to court again over a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject matter and on the same grounds (CPK Article 294(2));
  • once an application is left unexamined, you may go to court again in the ordinary way after removing the circumstances that were the reason for leaving it unexamined (CPK Article 297(2)).

So waiving a claim is an irreversible decision about that claim. In our practice, before filing a waiver we always ask the client once more whether they really want to give up the claim in full.

You can also waive part of the claim. In our practice this is common when the debtor pays part of the debt during the case: we file a waiver for the part that has been paid, and the case continues for the rest.

When the debtor pays after the claim is filed

This is the most common case in which a claimant wants to end the case. If the debtor has paid everything claimed, a short waiver filed with the court is enough.

Before filing it, check exactly what the debtor paid. In our practice it happens that a debtor, having received the court papers, pays only the principal debt but not the interest and not the litigation expenses, hoping that the case will be terminated. If you then waive the whole claim, you will not be able to recover the interest later, because you cannot bring the same claim again (CPK Article 294(2)). So waive only the part that has actually been paid. How litigation expenses are allocated in that situation is explained below.

The law mentions this case directly. Where the claimant waives the claim because, after the claim was filed, the defendant met the claimant’s demands before the end of the hearing on the merits, 75 per cent of the court fee paid to the court of first instance is refunded (CPK Article 87(2)).

When the court terminates the case or leaves the claim unexamined

The court terminates the case in the situations listed in CPK Article 293 (CPK Article 293). They include:

  • the case is not to be heard in court under civil procedure, except where it belongs to an administrative court (CPK Article 293(1));
  • there is already a final court judgment, or a ruling accepting a waiver or approving a settlement, in a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject matter and on the same grounds (CPK Article 293(3));
  • there is a final arbitral award in the same dispute (CPK Article 293(6)).

The court leaves the application unexamined in the situations listed in CPK Article 296(1) (CPK Article 296(1)). They include:

  • the claimant did not follow the mandatory pre-trial procedure, but it can still be used (CPK Article 296(1)(1));
  • the same dispute between the same parties, on the same subject matter and on the same grounds is already pending in court (CPK Article 296(1)(4));
  • the court fee has not been paid in the required amount (CPK Article 296(1)(7));
  • the parties have agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration (CPK Article 296(1)(9)).

For the court fee and defects in the claim there is a safeguard: on these grounds the claim is left unexamined only if the party fails to remedy the defects within the time set by the court, and only in the court of first instance (CPK Article 296(2)).

Some grounds are checked as early as acceptance of the claim. For example, if the parties have agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration, the court refuses to accept the claim (CPK Article 137(2)(6)). The same ground also appears among the grounds for leaving an application unexamined: the court leaves the application unexamined if the parties have concluded an agreement to refer that dispute to arbitration (CPK Article 296(1)(9)). The courts’ competence in arbitration matters is set not only by the CPK but also by the Law on Commercial Arbitration (CPK Article 23(2)), so if you rely on an arbitration clause, in our practice we raise it with the court at once, in the first procedural document.

A ruling terminating the case and a ruling leaving the application unexamined can be challenged by a separate appeal (CPK Article 295, CPK Article 298). The exception is the ruling recording withdrawal of the claim: it cannot be challenged by a separate appeal (CPK Article 139(2)). How the time limit for such an appeal and other procedural deadlines are counted, we explained in our article on court deadlines.

Can you ask the court to decide this straight away?

A defendant who believes there is a ground to terminate the case or leave the claim unexamined can ask the court to do so. The court decides questions that do not resolve the case on the merits by rulings (CPK Article 290(1)). The court may also decide it in the deliberation room (CPK Article 258(1)).

In our practice courts sometimes postpone such a request until the end of the case. This happens more often when the judge is still getting to know the case and does not want to adopt a decision that would close off further examination. So our advice is practical:

  • file the request as early as possible, before a lot of additional material has come into the case;
  • name the specific ground in CPK Article 293 or 296 clearly and attach the documents proving it;
  • where there are several defendants with the same position, a joint request is worth filing. It makes clearer to the court that all defendants are asking it not to increase expense and not to prolong the proceedings.

Even if the court rejects or postpones the request, its reasons show how the court sees the case. That helps you plan the rest of your defence.

How litigation expenses are allocated

When a case ends with a judgment, the court awards the party in whose favour it was adopted the litigation expenses that party incurred, payable by the other party (CPK Article 93(1)). When a case ends without a judgment on the merits, a different rule applies. The court allocates the expenses by looking at whether the parties’ conduct in the proceedings was proper and at the reasons why the expenses arose (CPK Article 94(1)). So why the case ends matters. For example, is the claimant waiving because the debtor paid only after receiving the claim, or because the claimant realised the claim was unfounded? Where the defendant pays only after receiving the claim, the court weighs whether that conduct was the reason the claimant incurred the expenses (CPK Article 94(1)).

The court awards the fees of an advocate only on a written request with a calculation and justification of the amount. If the request and the evidence of the amount are not filed before the end of the hearing on the merits, these amounts cannot be awarded (CPK Article 98(1)). The amount awarded cannot exceed the maximums in the recommendations approved by the Minister of Justice and the Chair of the Lithuanian Bar Council (CPK Article 98(2)). In our practice we file the request for litigation expenses, with the supporting documents, together with the waiver of the claim. The court can then deal with the expenses when it accepts the waiver. If the request is not filed in time, the court will no longer award these expenses; they could then be recovered only if the other party agrees to pay them voluntarily.

On the court fee:

  • if the claim is withdrawn after the hearing on the merits has begun, or the claimant waives the claim, 75 per cent of the court fee paid to the court of first instance is refunded (CPK Article 87(2));
  • if the case ends this way on appeal or in cassation, 100 per cent of the court fee paid for that appeal is refunded if it ends before the hearing on the merits begins, or 75 per cent if it ends later (CPK Article 87(2));
  • if the claim is withdrawn before acceptance and returned, the court fee is refunded (CPK Article 87(1)(3));
  • when the case is terminated because it is not to be heard in court, the court fee is refunded (CPK Article 87(1)(4));
  • when the case ends without a judgment on the merits through no fault of the claimant, the court fee is also refunded (CPK Article 87(1)(10));
  • when the claim is left unexamined because the mandatory pre-trial procedure was not followed or the court fee top-up was not paid, the fee is also refunded (CPK Article 87(1)(5));
  • the fee is refunded on an application, which must be filed with the court no later than two years after the relevant procedural step, and the refund is made by the State Tax Inspectorate (Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija) on the basis of the court’s ruling (CPK Article 87(3), 87(4)).

How to start

Send us the claim and the latest documents in the case and, if the debtor has paid, the payment statement. We will assess which route to take and prepare the application and the request for litigation expenses.

Phone +370 5 212 1506, email info@linden.lt

More about this service: dispute resolution.

Share
Newsletter