Court Costs: The Court of Cassation and the Limit to Ex Officio Awards (Order No. 16596/2025)

The management of court costs is a crucial aspect of any litigation. Order No. 16596 of the Court of Cassation, filed on June 20, 2025, provides essential clarification on the principle of ex officio cost allocation and the limits imposed by the waiver, even implicit, of the winning party. This ruling, presided over by Dr. L. R. and drafted by Dr. S. G. G., necessitates careful consideration of procedural strategies and the formulation of requests.

The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Ex Officio Power

Article 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes that the judge, in the judgment that concludes the proceedings, orders the losing party to reimburse the costs to the other party. This principle of "subsidiarity" aims to compensate the winning party for the expenses incurred. The Court of Cassation confirms that the award of costs is consequential and accessory to the merits decision, allowing the judge to order it ex officio, i.e., without a specific request from the prevailing party. This power ensures the application of the principle even in the absence of a precise request, but it is not unlimited.

The Holding of the Court of Cassation: Express or Implicit Waiver

The core of Order No. 16596/2025 lies in specifying the limits to ex officio awards. The holding states:

The allocation of court costs is consequential and accessory to the conclusion of the proceedings, therefore, the order for their payment may legitimately be issued against the losing party, even ex officio, in the absence of an explicit request from the winning party, unless an explicit intention by the latter to waive them is evident. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the appealed judgment which, in allocating the costs of the first instance proceedings, had placed them solely on the defendants, as the request contained in the appeal brief, to "order the defendants to pay the costs of the first instance proceedings," was to be considered an explicit waiver towards the voluntarily intervening party).

This ruling clarifies that, while the judge can act ex officio, this power is limited by an "explicit intention to waive" by the winning party. The Court of Cassation, in the case between M. C. S. and R., interpreted the request contained in the appeal brief, to "order the defendants to pay the costs of the first instance proceedings," as an explicit waiver towards a voluntarily intervening party who could not be classified as a "defendant." The Court therefore held that the specificity of the request limited the scope of the award, implicitly excluding unmentioned parties.

Practical Implications and Legal References

The decision falls within the framework of Articles 90 and 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern the right to reimbursement of court costs. Although this right belongs to the winning party, it is not inalienable and can be waived. The Court of Cassation highlights that a waiver does not require specific formal language but can be inferred from clear procedural conduct, such as a selectively formulated request. This implies that lawyers must pay the utmost attention when drafting requests for cost awards to avoid restrictive interpretations that could reduce cost recovery. The ruling aligns with previous precedents, such as Order No. 30729 of 2022, reinforcing the need for precision.

• The judge can order costs ex officio, unless waived.
• Waiver can be explicit or inferred from the formulation of the request.
• The specificity of the award request can limit its application.
• It is crucial to correctly identify all parties liable for the award.

Conclusions: The Need for Clarity

Order No. 16596/2025 of the Court of Cassation is a call for precision for all legal professionals. It reiterates that, although the judge can intervene ex officio on the matter of costs, the will of the winning party, even if manifested indirectly through the formulation of their requests, prevails. An inaccurate request for cost awards can be interpreted as a partial waiver, with significant financial consequences. It is therefore essential that the prevailing party formulates their requests unequivocally, clearly indicating all parties they intend to hold liable for costs. For qualified assistance and to avoid unpleasant surprises, the advice of an experienced lawyer is always the best choice.