Abstract

The number of cases related to the initiation of settlement proceedings has increased significantly in recent years. Introduced by the legislator to conclude a civil case by settlement, it also interrupts the prescription period. It is this effect that is of interest to creditors. Thus, he functioning of the institution of a summons to an attempt of settlement was subjected to a detailed analysis, which did not lead to a uniform position. The amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure introduced by the Act of 4 July 2019 was a response to the allegations of using the institution of summons to a settlement attempt only to interrupt the prescription period. The introduction of the obligation to brief the case and submit settlement proposals, along with the duty of the presiding judge to persuade the parties to settle, to seek an amicable solution to the dispute with them – are ways to resolve this problem. Ultimately, the creditor’s unfair behaviour, in light of the introduction of the provision on abuse of rights, will have no effect either at the level of procedural law or substantive law. However, despite these changes, the Supreme Court decided to request the enlarged bench to resolve the legal issue relating to the prescription of a claim. The intention of the study is to draw attention to those legal solutions the proper application of which guarantees protection of creditors’ rights without transgressing the normative consequences for the debtor. It would not be an appropriate solution solely to reduce the settlement procedure to calling the debtor for payment.