You are here:

Key facts of the case:

Plaintiff filed an action against the defendant in order to obtain from regional court a payment order requiring defendant to pay 790, 69 euros. Defendant appealed against the order but then plaintiff took back his action. Regional court thus proceeded to rule on reimbursement of costs of proceeding which the plaintiff was supposed to pay to the defendant. In this respect plaintiff raised objections and appealed to Regional court in Nitra that he would not pay for that part of cost which does not comply with criterion of efficiency. Plaintiff claimed that choice of a lawyer living far from resident place of defendant and from place of court does not comply with criterion of efficiency of expenses. In this sense plaintiff did not see any reason why he should pay expenses for such a lawyer.