LD Lisbon, July 29, 2026, Decision on confirmation of a settlement, UPC_CFI_757/2024

The Court held that R. 365.1 RoP (Confirmation by the Court of a settlement) applies to settlements limited to costs. As long as the settlement resolves an existing or potential dispute, regardless of whether it is submitted pending main proceedings on the merits as a partial settlement of the overall dispute it falls under R. 365.1 RoP (sec. 11). Whether an agreement on costs indeed constitutes a settlement within the meaning of R. 365.1 RoP must be assessed in light of its substance (sec. 12).

In the case at hand, the Court confirmed an agreement on costs as settlement and rendered it enforceable within one week of service of the decision (operative part)

The Court must interpret the Rules of Procedure in a reasonable and balanced manner, avoiding excessive formalism or disproportionate outcomes. If a rule allows multiple interpretations, the Court prefers the one that respects the legitimate interests of all parties and prevents unfair procedural advantages (sec. 14).

Regarding specifically, the meaning of “requested by the parties” in R. 365.1 RoP, the wording must be interpreted within the overall context of the rule, especially when a settlement has already been jointly submitted to the Court (sec. 15).

The Court held that the requirements of R. 365.1 RoP are satisfied when only one party submits the request for confirmation, after both parties have already jointly submitted the settlement and its terms (sec. 17).

The Court justifies this by stating that submitting a settlement to the Court signals a binding commitment by both parties to comply with its terms in good faith. By submitting the settlement, parties accept that the Court can render it enforceable through confirmation. A second joint request for enforceability is procedurally unnecessary. Requiring it would unfairly allow one party to unilaterally block the enforcement of a jointly submitted agreement (sec. 16).

The Court points out that the Rules of Procedure do not set a time limit or a procedural step (such as filing an appeal) for requesting a confirmation decision pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP (sec. 22).

In the case at hand, the one month time limit to apply for a cost decision pursuant to R. 150 seqq. had already expired when the request for the confirmation decision was filed.