Smart litigation: avoid costly mistakes with article 96 Rv
Entrepreneurs are sometimes faced with a business dispute in which they would like to quickly tie up a legal knot. Think of a difference of opinion about the interpretation of a contract, a settlement at the end of a cooperation or a concrete financial point of discussion.
Not every dispute has to go through costly and formal court proceedings. In fact, there is a little-known but convenient option in the law: the Article 96 Rv procedure. But beware: it only works well if you use it wisely.
What is an article 96 Rv procedure?
Article 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows parties to jointly bring an issue before a district judge. The intention is to:
✅Fast
✅Simple
✅Cheap.
How it works.
- The parties agree which question they want to submit to the judge.
- They write (together in one letter if necessary) to the district judge of their choice.
- No formal summons is needed and often no mandatory use of lawyers or bailiffs.
- The court fee is low.
- The subdistrict court judge determines, in consultation with the parties, how the proceedings will proceed.
The result is a binding decision – in principle, immediately in the highest instance, unless the parties jointly agree that an appeal is possible.
When is article 96 Rv useful for entrepreneurs?
Section 96 Rv proceedings can be a godsend for entrepreneurs who:
- have a limited, well-defined dispute;
- are willing to determine together exactly what the difference of opinion is about;
- want to save on time and costs.
Consider a disagreement about the interpretation of a contract provision or the determination of an amount.
Where can things go wrong?
A recent case shows how not to do it.
A law firm that fell apart wanted to unbundle, but the partners could not agree on everything. Therefore, they opted for Article 96 Rv to submit their dispute to the district judge. The idea was a quick and easy decision on financial unbundling.
In practice, however, they piled up more than 200 pages of litigation documents on countless details, including entries that were years old. The subdistrict court found that the case was far too complicated and voluminous for the simple and quick procedure that Article 96 Rv is precisely intended to provide.
The judge denied the request. The result: no resolution and only costs and frustration.
Important lessons for entrepreneurs
✅ Keep it simple and concrete.
The procedure only works if the dispute is well defined. Not all business disputes lend themselves to it.
✅ Create clarity in advance.
Discuss and determine together with the other party exactly what question you are submitting to the court.
✅ Consider alternatives.
Is the conflict too big or too emotionally charged? Mediation may then be a better step to normalize relations first and only then make the legal decisions.
✅ Weigh the costs and benefits.
Figuring out twenty legal points of contention over dozens of entries is rarely efficient. Focus on the bottom line.
✅ Engage counsel.
A lawyer can help reduce the case to the core legal issues that do lend themselves to this simple procedure.
Conclusion
The Article 96 Rv procedure is an underutilized opportunity for entrepreneurs to have a concrete dispute settled quickly, conveniently and inexpensively by the subdistrict court. But it only works if parties know how to limit their dispute to the real key issues.
Would you like to know whether this procedure is suitable for your situation? If so, feel free to contact us. We will be happy to think with you about the smartest approach.