(Resolution of the Supreme Court dated 29 April 2026, Case No. 25 Cdo 45/2026)
In this decision, the Supreme Court considered whether an intervening party acting in support of the defendant is entitled to file an opposition against a payment order requiring the defendant to make a monetary payment.
In the case at hand, the claimant sought monetary compensation from the defendant company for personal injury. An insurance company joined the proceedings as an intervening party on the defendant’s side. The court of first instance subsequently issued a payment order. Although the defendant filed an opposition against the payment order, the opposition was rejected as having been filed out of time. The intervening party filed a separate opposition within the applicable time limit, but the court of first instance rejected it on the grounds that it had been filed by a person who was not entitled to do so. This conclusion was upheld by the appellate court, according to which the Code of Civil Procedure does not expressly grant an intervening party the right to file an opposition against a payment order
The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion. It recalled that an intervening party generally has the same procedural rights and obligations as the party it supports, except in relation to acts involving a disposition of the subject matter of the proceedings. According to the Supreme Court, filing an opposition against a payment order is a procedural right and does not constitute a disposition of the subject matter of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court also emphasised that an opposition against a payment order is not an appeal in the strict sense. It has neither suspensive nor devolutive effect, and its filing does not result in the payment order being reviewed by a higher court. A timely opposition directly results in the payment order being set aside and the proceedings continuing. An intervening party therefore cannot be denied the right to file an opposition merely because the Code of Civil Procedure does not expressly provide for such a right.
The Supreme Court also referred to its previous case law, according to which an intervening party may submit a qualified statement of defence on behalf of the defendant in response to a request under Section 114b of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby preventing a judgment by acknowledgement from being issued where the defendant remains inactive. It stated that there was no reasonable justification for preventing an intervening party from similarly filing an opposition against a payment order, particularly given that a request to submit a qualified statement of defence commonly forms part of a payment order.
The Supreme Court therefore varied the decisions of the lower courts by ruling that the opposition filed by the intervening party against the payment order was not to be rejected. The decision is particularly significant in cases where an intervening party with an independent legal or economic interest in the outcome of the proceedings acts in support of the defendant. It confirms that an intervening party may actively defend the procedural interests of the party it supports, including by filing an opposition against a payment order, provided that such an act does not conflict with the procedural position taken by the principal party.
Legal Update 07/2026 download here.