"Fast Track" in Court – Here Comes the Simplified Civil Procedure

As part of the recently adopted package of justice legislation, several new developments are being introduced into the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) this year. Among them is the institution of simplified civil proceedings, effective as of 19 August 2025. This new type of procedure offers a faster and more (cost)efficient alternative to the often years-long "traditional" litigation process for the rights-seeking public. However, this new procedure does not come without compromises: the price of speed is the limitation of several procedural rights.

But what exactly does the simplified procedure entail? When can it be applied, how does it differ from the standard litigation process, and who can benefit from it?

Exclusively by Agreement – With Exceptions

One of the most notable features of the new legal institution - also one of its limitations - is that simplified civil proceedings can only be initiated based on a prior written agreement between the parties. This agreement is a mandatory element of the statement of claim, meaning that in order to apply the new procedural rules, it must be explicitly referenced and attached to the submission.

In business practice, agreements regarding the framework of potential future legal disputes are not unfamiliar; many contractual arrangements, especially those with international elements, contain clauses specifying the applicable law or the court having exclusive jurisdiction. Similarly, the parties may record their intent to opt for the simplified procedure in advance within the underlying contract of their future dispute, or alternatively, they may agree on it in a separate document immediately prior to initiating the proceedings. What matters is that the court must be able to clearly verify that both parties wish to apply the simplified procedural rules.

It is important to highlight that the legislator has excluded the possibility of simplified proceedings for certain types of cases. These include matters concerning personal status - such as divorce or paternity cases - as well as disputes arising from consumer relationships and employment-related cases. Therefore, the new procedural form is primarily, though not exclusively, intended to offer a quicker and more efficient solution for typically contractual disputes between businesses.

Shorter and More Affordable Path to Judgment

The main appeal of the simplified procedure lies in its speed and lower costs. The process does not divide into separate preparatory and substantive phases; instead, once the statement of claim is filed, the defendant has only 15 days - rather than the usual 45 - to submit a statement of defence. The court is also required to act as a priority: instead of the standard 30 days, it must take procedural action within 8 days. Following the written defence, only one additional written submission is permitted, which further accelerates the case.

After the defence is received, the CCP allows the parties to revert to the general procedural rules. Once all parties have submitted their procedural statements, the court must ask whether they wish to proceed under the general rules. If both parties request it, the court schedules a preparatory hearing and the proceedings continue accordingly. If not, the court renders a judgment within 30 days from the notice.

To ensure the swiftest possible resolution, the simplified procedure is conducted entirely in writing. This means the court does not hold hearings, no witnesses are heard, and several procedural actions commonly used in traditional litigation - such as suspension of the proceedings, filing of counterclaims, amendments to claims or defences, or third-party interventions - are excluded, as these often contribute to delays.

Thus, while the new legal institution deprives participants of several familiar and frequently used procedural tools, this is offset by a reduced court fee: in simplified proceedings, the fee amounts to 70% of that calculated under the general rules.

Limited Evidence and Mandatory Legal Representation

The mandatory written format naturally extends to the evidentiary process as well: only documentary evidence and written expert opinions are admissible, there is no possibility for witness testimony or personal statements. Expert evidence is also subject to stricter limitations: appointing a new expert or supplementing the expert opinion is not permitted.

As a result, developing an appropriate evidentiary strategy and clearly identifying the evidence to be submitted at the outset of the case is of critical importance. To ensure this is done professionally, the CCP mandates legal representation in simplified proceedings. This requirement not only protects the parties’ interests but also assists the courts by ensuring structured and relevant submissions. Although mandatory legal representation may somewhat diminish the financial advantage of reduced court fees, it ensures that the proceedings are professionally sound and efficiently conducted.

Remedies – Fast and Limited in Scope

Although one of the undisguised aims of this new procedure is to reduce the burden on courts and to expedite case resolution, the right to legal remedy remains guaranteed - albeit in a more limited form. One key difference is the shortened deadline: instead of 15 days, parties have only 8 days to appeal decisions rendered during the proceedings. In the case of a judgment, appeals may only be lodged based on a material procedural violation or the incorrect application of law.

Another significant feature of simplified proceedings is that final judgments cannot be challenged through a review petition submitted to the Curia. While this significantly narrows the scope for legal remedy, it also ensures quicker final resolution of disputes, an advantage particularly relevant for businesses, as it allows for more predictable planning of both the timeline and costs of litigation. It is worth noting that other remedies such as retrial or constitutional complaint remain available even in simplified proceedings.

Is It Worth Choosing?

The new procedural form may prove particularly attractive to small and medium-sized enterprises seeking a swift, predictable, and cost-effective resolution to their legal disputes. The requirement for mandatory legal representation ensures the professional integrity of the proceedings, even within a framework characterized by limited procedural instruments and a strictly written format.

It is important to recognize, however, that the simplified procedure does not constitute an ideal solution in every case. In matters requiring more complex and extensive evidentiary procedures, the constrained procedural toolkit and tight deadlines may serve as limiting factors. Additionally, it remains questionable whether it is realistic, in the context of a legal dispute, to expect parties to enter into an agreement that effectively waives their rights to evidentiary measures and remedies. Nevertheless, in cases of a more straightforward nature—where all parties are committed to a swift and economically efficient resolution—the new procedure may offer a viable alternative to conventional litigation.

Conclusion

The simplified civil procedure seeks to combine the concept of voluntary submission with streamlined procedural elements already known in other legal domains, such as administrative litigation. The result is a hybrid regime that—while offering a faster and more cost-efficient path—relies heavily on party autonomy and imposes limitations on the availability of legal remedies.

The long-term success of this new procedural model remains uncertain; it will ultimately be determined by practical experience whether it can fulfil the - yet somewhat ambiguous - role envisaged for it by the legislature.