Litigation 2026 Comparisons

The legal system of the Republic of Croatia is founded on the principles of civil law, characterised by codified statutes and legislative instruments that form the primary source of law, sharing significant similarities with the German legal tradition. Procedurally, Croatia adopts a model in which the court plays an active role in establishing relevant facts and guides the progress of proceedings. Legal matters are predominantly conducted in written form. While oral arguments may be presented, particularly at hearings or trials, the written element remains central to the legal process. This structure reflects Croatia’s alignment with the continental European tradition, promoting judicial efficiency and legal certainty.

The Croatian court system consists of regular and specialised courts. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia is the highest judicial body, and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia is a special judicial body with the primary task of supervising the constitutionality of laws and protecting the human rights and freedoms of citizens guaranteed by the constitution. Regular courts are organised into municipal courts (handling first instance civil and criminal matters) and county courts (handling appeals and more complex matters). In addition, the judiciary includes a robust system of specialised courts, such as commercial courts, administrative courts, criminal courts and misdemeanour courts, as well as higher-tier specialised courts, such as the High Commercial Court, High Administrative Court, High Misdemeanour Court, and High Criminal Court. These courts are organised by subject matter and deal with cases within their respective fields of law. Although Croatia is a unitary state and does not have a federal court system, its judiciary is structured in a way that ensures specialisation, consistency, and hierarchical review. On average, it takes several months from the initiation of proceedings to reach the trial stage, although this varies depending on the complexity of the case, court caseload, and procedural factors.

Court proceedings in Croatia are, as a rule, open to the public. Hearings are generally public, reinforcing the principles of transparency and accountability within the judiciary. Nevertheless, the court is authorised to restrict public access, either in full or in part, under specific and justified circumstances. These include situations where disclosure would jeopardise public interest, the confidentiality of classified or sensitive information – such as matters of national security, military secrecy, official or commercial secrets – or where it is necessary to protect the private life of the parties, human dignity, or human life itself. In such cases, the court may determine that non-public proceedings are in the best interests of justice.

Legal representation before Croatian courts is primarily carried out by attorneys-at-law who are duly admitted to the Croatian Bar Association and authorised to represent clients in all types of legal proceedings. However, Croatian procedural law allows certain exceptions. Parties may also be represented by an individual with full legal capacity who is either an employee of the party or a blood relative in the first line.

Foreign lawyers are allowed to practise law in Croatia under conditions set forth in the Lawyers Act. These include compliance with the requirements related to recognition of professional qualifications, and adherence to Croatian legal and ethical standards. In particular, lawyers from EU Member States benefit from mutual recognition frameworks, but must still satisfy national regulatory requirements. These provisions ensure quality representation while enabling cross-border legal practice in line with European legal integration.

Litigation funding by third-party funders is not explicitly regulated under Croatian law. Consequently, it is not currently subject to any formal prohibitions or restrictions. In practice, such arrangements would likely be assessed under general contract law principles, as governed by the Law on Obligations. Depending on the specific terms and structure of the arrangement, Croatian legal theory may characterise these agreements either as a form of loan agreement or as a partnership agreement. In the absence of regulation, such contracts remain legally permissible, provided they comply with the general rules of contractual validity and public policy.

Since third-party litigation funding is not regulated under Croatian law, there are no express provisions limiting the types of proceedings to which it may apply. However, it may reasonably be assumed that such funding would be most relevant in commercial disputes involving monetary claims, where the value of the claim justifies the risk assumed by the funder. In addition, third-party funding may also be applicable in arbitration proceedings, particularly in high-value international commercial arbitrations where legal costs can be substantial. For private individuals who are unable to afford legal representation, the Croatian legal system provides access to legal aid, which may serve as alternative means of support.

As previously noted, the Croatian legal system does not regulate third-party funding and therefore does not impose restrictions based on the party’s procedural position. In principle, such funding could be available to both plaintiffs and defendants, provided that the nature of the funding agreement complies with the applicable provisions of contract law. The lack of legislative or judicial guidance means that the feasibility of such arrangements would likely be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the structure of the agreement and the financial interests involved.

There are no statutory minimum or maximum thresholds concerning the amount of third-party litigation funding in Croatia. Due to the absence of specific regulation, the amount of funding is left to the discretion of the parties involved and would typically depend on the complexity of the case, the projected costs, and the potential value of the claim. As such, funders and litigants are free to negotiate terms appropriate to the circumstances of the dispute, subject only to general contract law principles.

Although third-party litigation funding is not regulated in Croatia, such funders, where present, might generally consider covering all major litigation-related expenses. This could include legal representation fees, court fees, and expert witness costs, among others. The scope of funding would be determined by the terms of the agreement between the funder and the funded party.

Litigation funding contingency fee agreements are not explicitly regulated under Croatian law. Consequently, they are not currently subject to any formal prohibitions or restrictions.

There are no legal time limits or statutory deadlines imposed in Croatia for securing third-party litigation funding. Since this area remains unregulated, parties are free to enter into funding agreements at any stage of the proceedings, subject only to practical considerations such as the stage of litigation, procedural posture, and the funder’s own risk assessment. The flexibility in timing allows parties to seek funding even after the commencement of proceedings, provided that the funding arrangement complies with general contract law requirements.

On a general note, there are no formal legal prerequisites that must be satisfied prior to initiating court proceedings in Croatia. Unlike some jurisdictions that impose mandatory pre-litigation protocols, such as letters before action or compulsory mediation, Croatian civil procedure does not prescribe specific conduct before filing a statement of claim. However, for claims seeking compensation for damage (other than in employment law), the parties do have a statutory duty to try to settle, or at least warn, the other side before filing suit. Also, anyone intending to file a lawsuit against the Republic of Croatia must first submit a request for an amicable settlement of the dispute to the State Attorney’s Office before initiating legal proceedings.

One should also note there might be certain non-court proceedings that need to be conducted prior to accessing the court, eg, in consumer protection, employment disputes, etc.

Finally, where not required by law, it remains prudent practice for parties to attempt amicable resolution or issue formal notice of default to preserve goodwill and demonstrate reasonableness.

Statutes of limitations in Croatian law are regulated by the Obligations Act and vary depending on the type of claim in question. The general limitation period for claims arising from civil contracts is five years, unless a special provision prescribes a shorter term. For instance, claims related to utility services (eg, electricity or water bills) are subject to a one-year limitation, while claims stemming from commercial contracts are time-barred after three years. On the other hand, claims based on final and binding court decisions are enforceable for ten years. The limitation period begins on the day following the date when the obligation became due.

It is crucial to emphasise that, in civil matters, Croatian courts do not consider the expiration of the limitation period ex officio; rather, the debtor must raise this objection in the proceedings. Furthermore, the course of the limitation period may be interrupted in several legally defined ways – most notably through an express or implicit acknowledgment of debt by the debtor (which may include partial payment or a recorded statement) or by the creditor filing a lawsuit or taking other legal action before a competent authority. Upon interruption, the limitation period restarts afresh from the date of the interrupting event, and the previously elapsed time is not taken into account. Thus, both creditors and debtors must remain vigilant, as the legal consequences of missing or resetting limitation periods can be decisive in civil litigation.

Jurisdiction in civil matters in Croatia is primarily governed by the rules of territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act. As a general rule, if the law does not provide for exclusive jurisdiction of another court, the competent court is the one having general territorial jurisdiction over the defendant/respondent. For natural persons, this means the court in the district of their permanent residence, or, if unavailable, the place of temporary residence. For legal entities, jurisdiction lies with the court in the district where their registered seat is located.

Special jurisdiction may arise in specific cases such as multiple defendants being sued in a single action, cases involving joint and several liability, or tort claims.

Additionally, parties may contractually agree to confer jurisdiction to a particular court, provided the court has subject-matter jurisdiction and the law does not mandate exclusive jurisdiction elsewhere.

The claimant is permitted to amend the formal statement of claim (complaint) after its initial filing, but within specific procedural limits. The statement of claim must include a defined request concerning the legal matter at issue, including any ancillary claims, the facts on which the claim is based, and the evidence supporting those facts. A single statement of claim may include multiple requests against the same defendant if those claims are connected by the same factual and legal basis.

The plaintiff is generally allowed to amend the statement of claim until the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings. Exceptionally, if the plaintiff was unable, through no fault of their own, to amend it earlier, the court may permit amendments up to the close of the main hearing. Amendments may involve altering the legal characterisation of the claim, increasing the amount sought, or adding an additional claim.

Minor corrections – such as clarifying or supplementing factual assertions, correcting legal references, or reducing the scope of the claim – do not constitute a formal amendment under the law. Furthermore, the plaintiff retains the right to withdraw the claim without the defendant’s consent, but only before the defendant has engaged in substantive discussion of the merits.

Under Croatian civil procedure, the statement of claim is served on the respondent/defendant by the court, accompanied by an order requiring the defendant to file a response within a statutory deadline ranging between 30 and 45 days. It is of paramount importance that the method of service employed ensures verifiable proof of receipt by the defendant. Service may be executed via post, through designated court officers such as public notaries, via competent administrative authorities, directly at court, or through electronic means using the e-Communication system.

In instances where the defendant is situated outside the Republic of Croatia, the mode of service depends on the territorial and jurisdictional framework. For parties domiciled within the European Union, service is effected in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, which governs the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters. Conversely, if the party is located outside the EU, service must conform to the relevant bilateral or multilateral treaties ratified by Croatia – most notably, the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 1965 (HCCH 1965).

In Croatian civil procedure, a defendant’s failure to respond to a duly served lawsuit can have serious legal consequences – particularly the issuance of a judgment by default (presuda zbog ogluhe). For this kind of judgment to be rendered, several strict prerequisites must be satisfied. First, the defendant must have been properly served both the statement of claim and the order to respond. Second, the claim must be substantiated by the facts as alleged in the complaint. Third, these facts must not be contradicted either by the plaintiff’s own submitted evidence or by facts that are generally known or judicially noticeable. Lastly, there must be no indication of legitimate circumstances, such as force majeure, that could have prevented the defendant from submitting a timely response.

Additionally, the court may issue a judgment for default of appearance (presuda zbog izostanka) when the defendant fails to appear at a scheduled hearing having been properly summoned and not responded to a claim in writing. Importantly, Croatian law also contemplates the possibility of issuing a judgment without holding a hearing (presuda bez održavanja rasprave), where the defendant has effectively admitted the decisive facts of the case, regardless of whether the legal claim was expressly contested.

The Croatian legal framework does provide for representative or collective actions, albeit with a structure and scope distinct from common law jurisdictions. These mechanisms are primarily aimed at safeguarding the collective interests of groups, particularly in areas such as consumer protection and labour law. Representative actions may be initiated by authorised entities, such as associations or other legal persons, on behalf of a defined group. Notably, Croatian law does not recognise an “opt-out” system; rather, it follows a bifurcated approach.

In the first stage, the representative entity files a lawsuit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief to protect the collective interest. At this stage, individual group members are not directly involved, nor is there any mechanism allowing them to exclude themselves from the proceeding.

Upon conclusion of this stage, and assuming a favourable outcome for the claimants, the second stage allows for individual claims. Here, affected individuals may “opt-in” by filing separate lawsuits for specific remedies, such as damages, and the court in such subsequent proceedings is bound by the decision rendered in the first stage.

The procedural and substantive framework for such collective actions is governed primarily by the Civil Proceedings Act, which operates as the lex generalis. However, sector-specific regulation – eg, the Consumer Protection Act, the Commerce Act and the Act on the Suppression of Discrimination – provide further guidance and rights in their respective domains.

One of the most high-profile representative actions in recent Croatian legal history involves claims against banks over loans denominated in Swiss francs, illustrating the tangible impact of these legal instruments in protecting collective rights.

Croatian procedural law does not impose any statutory obligation on parties to provide a formal cost estimate of potential litigation at the commencement of proceedings.

While cost predictability is desirable, the inherent complexity of litigation, the possibility of appeals, and the court’s discretion in awarding costs contribute to a degree of uncertainty. Therefore, although not legally mandated, early cost assessment remains a critical element of litigation strategy and risk management.

In the Croatian legal system, interim applications or motions are primarily understood within the framework of securing a claim or safeguarding specific rights before the conclusion of a dispute. Such applications are not confined to procedural or case management matters alone, but can lead to substantive – albeit temporary – remedies granted by the court. These remedies are typically aimed at preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm pending the final adjudication of the case.

For instance, a party may request that the court issue an order prohibiting a defendant from alienating or encumbering certain property, to instruct a financial institution to freeze assets held in a bank account, or to seize movable property to ensure satisfaction of a pecuniary claim. Interim measures of this kind are regulated by the provisions of the Enforcement Act and the Civil Procedure Act which, together, provide a procedural mechanism for the protection of rights at an early stage.

However, it should be noted that Croatia does not recognise pre-trial proceedings in the same manner as Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions; thus, interim motions are inherently limited to the scope of securing claims and to protecting existing rights rather than resolving the substantive dispute before trial.

Croatian procedural law does not provide for early judgment applications equivalent to summary judgment or default judgment as known in common law jurisdictions. Instead, the Croatian system relies on the preparatory hearing as a key procedural stage designed to narrow the issues in dispute and encourage settlement.

The Croatian legal system does not recognise dispositive motions similar to those available in common law jurisdictions, such as motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment.

Under Croatian law, a person who has a legal interest in the outcome of litigation between other parties may intervene in that proceeding to protect their rights, but only after initiating litigation. This intervention is permitted where the court’s decision could directly or indirectly affect the intervener’s legal position. A mere economic or social interest is insufficient; the interest must be legal in nature.

An intervener may join the proceedings at any stage after submission of a claim and before the judgment becomes final, and may perform procedural actions in support of one party. The court may reject the intervention if no legal interest exists.

A claimant who is not a citizen of Croatia, any EU member state, or a state party to the EEA Agreement or another treaty granting exemption from securing litigation costs, and who resides in a non-member state, must, at the defendant’s request, provide security for litigation costs unless the claimant’s country recognises Croatian court decisions on such costs. This benefit, however, may be exercised only after initiating a litigation and submitting the claim before the court.

The defendant must request this security at the preparatory hearing, or, if none is held, at the first main hearing before addressing the merits. Security is usually provided in money, but the court may allow another suitable form. The defendant cannot request security in employment, family, or maintenance disputes, counterclaims, or where the claimant has asylum in Croatia. If security is not provided in time, the claim is deemed withdrawn.

As a general rule, the losing party bears the costs associated with interim applications or motions. The court may order reimbursement of the prevailing party’s reasonable legal expenses incurred in connection with the interim measure. In exceptional circumstances, such as partial success or procedural fairness considerations, the court retains discretion to apportion costs differently or to order that each party bear its own expenses.

The purpose of interim measures under Croatian law is to ensure the temporary protection of a party’s rights and to prevent irreparable harm or frustration of enforcement before a final judgment is rendered. Due to the very nature of interim measures, proceedings related to such applications are considered urgent, and courts are required to act without delay. Accordingly, a party may request that the application be dealt with on an urgent basis, and Croatian courts generally prioritise such motions to ensure that the requested protection is effective and timely.

Croatia does not have a “discovery” procedure comparable to that found in common law jurisdictions. Civil proceedings are governed by the principle of a public, oral, and party-driven trial, under which each party bears the responsibility to present its claims, defences, and supporting evidence. There is no obligation for parties to exchange documents or information before trial. Instead, at the preparatory hearing, each party must disclose the facts and evidence on which their claim or defence is based. The court then determines which facts are relevant and admissible, and which evidence will be presented during the main hearing.

Although Croatia does not provide for discovery in the common law sense, evidence may be obtained from third parties under court supervision. The court may order third parties to provide information, documents, or expert opinions. Parties may also propose evidence involving third parties such as witness testimony or the production of specific documents, but the decision to admit such evidence ultimately rests with the court.

There are no pre-trial discovery proceedings in Croatia. The collection and examination of evidence is considered an exclusive judicial function and is conducted by the court upon a party’s request or, exceptionally, ex officio. The process is guided by the Civil Procedure Act which entrusts the court with ensuring that all relevant evidence is presented in a fair and orderly manner during the trial.

Croatian procedure relies on the obligation of parties to present all facts and propose all evidence supporting their case.

Legal privilege in Croatia primarily takes the form of attorney–client privilege, protecting all confidential communications between lawyers and their clients. This privilege is guaranteed under the Law on the Legal Profession, which also provides that attorneys are not criminally or civilly liable for legal opinions expressed in the course of their work. Confidentiality is considered a fundamental principle of the legal profession, ensuring that clients can communicate freely and fully with their counsel.

Croatian law prohibits the disclosure of certain documents to protect trade secrets, confidential statistical data, and classified information. The Act on the Protection of Undisclosed Information forbids the disclosure of trade secrets obtained in legal proceedings, while the Official Statistics Act restricts access to confidential statistical data. Furthermore, agreements on national security prevent the release of classified materials. Under the Right of Access to Information Act, public authorities may also withhold documents where disclosure could hinder criminal investigations or ongoing legal proceedings. These provisions collectively ensure that sensitive and protected information remains confidential throughout the judicial process.

Under Croatian law, courts may grant injunctive relief (privremena mjera) to preserve a party’s rights or prevent irreparable harm before final resolution of a dispute.

Applicants must always show the plausibility of their claim and a risk that the opposing party may obstruct enforcement, particularly by hiding or disposing of assets. If enforcement is sought abroad, this risk is presumed. Asset-freezing measures may include freezing bank accounts, prohibiting transfers of real estate, and appointing custodians.

Provisional measures may also be ordered during civil proceedings, even without prior notice in urgent cases to prevent imminent risk of irreparable harm or violence.

On the other hand, preliminary measures (prethodna mjera) may be ordered to secure a well-founded monetary claim that has not yet matured.

Under Croatian law, there is no set “waiting period” for urgent provisional relief. Courts must act without delay, often issuing orders the same day or within hours of receiving the application. Similarly, under the Enforcement Act, security measures must be decided promptly once the applicant shows (i) the plausibility of the claim and (ii) risk of asset dissipation. Although the Civil Procedure Act does not specify a “night judge” system, all courts maintain a duty judge rota.

Croatian courts may grant ex parte relief (eg, asset freezes, custodianship) without hearing the other side when there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm or violence.

Under the Enforcement Act, applicants may be held liable for costs and damages if a provisional (security) measure, whether ex parte or after notice, is later found to be unfounded or unjustified. If the measure is set aside, the respondent is entitled to full compensation for harm caused. Courts may require applicants to deposit advance security for damages before granting certain measures, particularly where the applicant has not yet established both a plausible claim and a risk of asset dissipation. If the security is not provided within the court’s deadline, the application must be dismissed.

Croatian law does not expressly authorise a single “worldwide” freezing injunction covering all assets globally. However, claimants can secure assets both in Croatia and abroad through complementary mechanisms. Once a plausible claim is shown, courts may order domestic security measures, such as freezing bank accounts, prohibiting real estate transfers, or appointing custodians – for assets located in Croatia. These measures have full effect domestically and facilitate recognition abroad under EU or bilateral enforcement frameworks.

For EU-based funds, Regulation 655/2014 enables Croatian courts to issue a European Account Preservation Order, directly freezing bank accounts in other Member States. Outside the EU, Croatian freezing orders must be submitted to the foreign jurisdiction where assets are located. Recognition depends on local law and international treaties such as the Hague Convention on International Access to Justice.

Injunctive relief under Croatian law may target not only the debtor but also third parties holding or receiving the debtor’s assets. Under the Enforcement Act, courts may order prohibition of disposing or encumbrance of assets, seizing and depositing money or valuables, restricting dealings with real estate or claims, ordering banks to withhold payments, etc.

On a general note, if a court-ordered injunction is ignored or breached, such actions are considered legally ineffective, unless the rules protecting bona fide acquirers apply meaning that if an injunction is recorded in a public registry (eg, land registry), the claimant can enforce the measure once their claim becomes enforceable against assets or rights affected by the injunction.

Furthermore, the claimant has the right to seek damages from the debtor, banks, or any third parties that have acted in violation of the injunction, under the general principles of tort law. In cases where these measures are ignored or breached, the court may also impose additional sanctions, including monetary fines or imprisonment, to ensure compliance and protect the claimant’s interests.

Civil trials are oral, public, and direct, followed with paper-based documents evidencing them. Under the Civil Procedure Act, cases progress through a preparatory hearing and a main hearing. At the preparatory stage, the plaintiff presents the claim, followed by the defendant’s response. The parties are then invited to elaborate on their factual assertions and propose supporting evidence. The court subsequently issues a procedural decision identifying the disputed facts and determining which evidence, experts or witnesses will be presented during the main hearing. Importantly, the court is not bound by this preliminary decision which may be amended subsequently.

The preparatory stage concludes with a formal court decision, which both closes the preliminary proceedings and schedules the main trial.

During the main hearing, all evidence and arguments are presented directly before the court, which aims to complete proceedings in minimum sessions. Witnesses testify openly, describe how they know the facts, and may be questioned or confronted. Experts provide written oral and/or oral opinions within set deadlines and must explain their reasoning truthfully. The court may issue written procedural rulings outside hearings, but the final judgment is based on all evidence and argument submitted during the trial.

In practice, Croatian civil procedure recognises case-management hearings as short hearings.

Case-management hearings organise the course of the trial. At the first hearing, the court sets deadlines, schedules the main hearing, and decides on evidence or expert involvement. During preparation, it handles procedural matters such as actions of interveners, the joining or separation of lawsuits, securing evidence, extending deadlines, scheduling or postponing hearings, corrections to submissions, etc.

At the preparatory hearing, parties present claims and defences, discuss evidence, and the court rules on admissibility. The court may promote mediation, clarify issues, or postpone as needed. Plans may later be adjusted, often without a new hearing.

Under Croatian law, there is no institution of jury trials in civil proceedings. All disputes in the civil courts, whether at first instance or on appeal, are decided by professional judges alone.

In civil proceedings, the admission and evaluation of evidence follow a flexible, principles-based system aimed at discovering all facts relevant to the dispute. The court determines which proposed evidence will be admitted, with no general exclusionary rule – any means of proof is allowed if it helps establish decisive facts.

While each party must present its proposed witnesses, documents, and other evidence before or during the preparatory hearing, in rare cases the court may admit additional evidence ex officio. The burden of proof lies with the party asserting a fact, and unresolved doubts are decided against that party.

Witnesses are obliged to testify truthfully, though certain privileges apply. Experts are appointed when specialised knowledge is needed, and their opinions are assessed under the same free-evaluation principle.

In non-contentious proceedings, the court may admit all appropriate evidence, even against a party’s will. Overall, this regime balances party initiative with strong judicial control to ensure fairness and truth in fact-finding.

Croatian court procedure fully admits expert evidence whenever factual issues arise that require technical or specialised knowledge beyond the judges’ own competence. Both parties and the court itself may initiate expert‐witness proceedings in civil, non-litigious and administrative cases. Expert testimony in Croatian trials is routinely used form of proof where both parties may propose and object to experts, whereas the court has the final choice and may appoint experts on its own initiative. Courts maintain registers of permanent experts, and typically select from these lists unless unavailable.

Court hearings are generally public, though access to recordings and transcripts is regulated. Civil and criminal hearings are open to all adult members of the public, subject to security restrictions, and may be closed only for legally defined reasons such as protecting minors, confidential information, national security, etc. In other words, the public may freely attend hearings in most cases, whereas recordings and transcripts remain part of the court file, accessible only to participants under controlled and limited conditions.

In Croatia, judges play an active and managerial role – fully guiding the process in civil cases and intervening more directly in criminal trials. In civil proceedings, the judge leads the preparatory hearing by clarifying facts, identifying missing evidence, and promoting settlement, while ensuring that unrepresented parties receive proper information and guidance. During the main hearing, the judge manages the presentation of evidence and may issue on-the-spot rulings without full debate, such as default, acknowledgment, or withdrawal. Otherwise, decisions are reserved for written judgment, which must be delivered within 45 days of the final hearing.

The timeline for commercial disputes typically spans from several months to a few years, depending on the complexity of the case. Once a claim is filed, the first hearing is usually scheduled within two to three months, with service of documents taking anywhere from a few weeks to several months. After the initial hearing, a court procedure can take between six and 24 months after filing, depending on the case’s complexity. A judgment is typically delivered within one to three months after the trial concludes. If either party appeals, the process can extend by another six to 18 months. In total, a straightforward commercial dispute may be resolved in 12 to 18 months, while more complex cases, including appeals, may take 24 months or longer.       

Parties in Croatia may conclude a settlement agreement at any stage of civil proceedings before a final judgment becomes legally binding, including during appellate proceedings until the second instance decision is rendered. The settlement may relate to the entire claim or only a portion of it, provided that it concerns rights and obligations that the parties are legally entitled to dispose of. A court settlement has the effect of a final and enforceable title. In the event of non-compliance, the successful party may initiate enforcement proceedings based on the settlement.

In Croatia, settlements are neither expressly confidential nor public. The law does not specifically regulate confidentiality in settlement agreements. As a result, while court settlements form part of the case record and are accessible to the parties and relevant judicial authorities, they are not automatically treated as confidential.

The enforcement of court settlements is carried out through the procedure regulated by the Enforcement Act. Only settlements concluded before a court possess the character of an enforceable instrument, allowing direct initiation of enforcement proceedings in the event of breach. Private settlements made outside of court are contractually binding but lack immediate enforceability, requiring a separate court proceeding to obtain an enforcement title unless executed in proper form before a notary public.

A settlement agreement may be set aside or declared void if it contravenes public policy, contains an illegal or impossible obligation, or was entered into under duress, misrepresentation, or fraud. The legal grounds largely mirror those applicable to invalid contracts under Croatian contract law. Because settlements are final and binding, setting them aside requires initiating a specific judicial action to challenge their validity.

In Croatian civil proceedings, the successful litigant is generally entitled to recover the costs of litigation, including court fees and attorney’s expenses. The extent of such awards is assessed according to statutory provisions. Beyond reimbursement of legal costs, Croatia does not provide additional financial “awards” for being successful in litigation, as might be observed in certain other jurisdictions.

Croatian jurisdiction does not recognise punitive damages as such. Compensation is limited to material damages, covering quantifiable financial losses, and non-material damages, such as pain, suffering, or emotional distress. In cases of wrongful death, compensation is typically limited to non-material damages suffered by family members. The primary aim of the Croatian system is to restore the injured party to the position they would have occupied but for the wrongful act, rather than to punish the defendant.

Under Croatian law a creditor may claim contractual and default (pre-judgment) interest on any monetary obligation that is not paid when due and thereafter continue to claim interest until the debt is satisfied. The statutory default rate is adjusted semi-annually, reflecting the prevailing European Central Bank refinancing rate at the start of each half-year period. For commercial obligations and contracts involving legal persons, the default rate is the ECB rate plus eight percentage points. For all other obligations, it is three percentage points above the ECB rate. Finally, no interest runs on unpaid default interest except on accrued but unpaid default interest from the date on which the creditor filed suit for that interest.

Enforcement of a domestic judgment is carried out through the enforcement procedure which may be initiated by the creditor.

The subject of enforcement may comprise both assets of the debtor – such as money, immovable and movable property, securities, company shares and certain non-property rights, such as delivery or transfer obligations. The creditor may choose the enforcement subject within the scope permitted by law.

Since 1 July 2013, judgments issued in European Union Member States may be enforced in Croatia without special enforcement procedures, pursuant to EU regulations on the recognition and enforcement of judgments. For judgments originating outside the EU, enforcement is governed by applicable international conventions to which Croatia is a party, such as the Hague Convention of 1 March 1954 on Civil Procedure, the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Parental Responsibility, and the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, among others. Enforcement of foreign judgments follows a formal application to domestic courts, which verify that the judgment meets the conditions for recognition and enforcement under Croatian law and applicable international agreements.

Croatian law distinguishes between two primary types of legal remedies: objections (prigovori) and appeals (žalbe). Objections are decided by the same court, whereas appeals are reviewed by a higher instance court.

In civil litigation, a first instance judgment rendered by a municipal or commercial court may be appealed to a county court or a higher commercial court, depending on the jurisdiction. In certain cases, a further extraordinary legal remedy – a review (revizija) – may be filed before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, provided that statutory conditions are fulfilled, ie, significant legal questions arise and the remedy is granted by the Supreme Court.

Parties may appeal a first instance judgment within 15 days of receiving the written decision. A timely appeal suspends the finality and enforceability of the contested portion of the judgment.

An appeal may be filed on three principal grounds:

• substantial violations of civil procedure, when the court failed to apply or misapplied procedural provisions, affecting the legality or correctness of the judgment;
• erroneous or incomplete determination of facts, when a decisive fact was incorrectly assessed or omitted; or
• incorrect application of substantive law, when the applicable material law was not applied or was applied incorrectly.

A review before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia may be filed only if granted by the Supreme Court, against final second instance judgments and solely on questions of law of general significance, particularly where the appellate decision diverges from established Supreme Court practice or where case law remains inconsistent.

The appeal must be submitted to the first instance court that issued the judgment, which then forwards it to the competent appellate court. The appeal must specify the decision being challenged, the grounds for appeal, and the relief sought. The first instance court examines whether the appeal is timely, complete, and admissible before transmitting it. Once the appellate court receives the case, it reviews both the procedural and substantive correctness of the first instance decision.

The appellate court reviews the lawfulness and correctness of the first instance decision, examining alleged procedural violations, factual errors, and misapplications of substantive law. The review is confined to issues expressly raised in the appeal – ie, new claims or arguments cannot be introduced at this stage. However, the appellate court considers applicability of substantive law and procedural irregularities ex officio.

An appeal is permitted unless explicitly excluded by statute. Law imposes procedural conditions such as timeliness, formal completeness, and legal standing for an appeal. An appeal that fails to meet these requirements will be dismissed without consideration of the merits.

In extraordinary cases, such as a request for review (revizija) before the Supreme Court, the appellant must demonstrate that the case involves a significant legal question or inconsistency in judicial practice.

The court possesses broad remedial powers. It may:

• uphold the lower court’s judgment – ie, dismiss the appeal as inadmissible or unfounded and confirm the judgment;
• set aside the judgment and remit the case for retrial if procedural or factual deficiencies exist;
• set aside the judgment and dismiss the claim entirely; or
• modify the judgment directly where sufficient facts are established in the proceedings and court records permit a lawful decision.

In Croatian civil proceedings, the losing party is generally responsible for reimbursing the court awarded litigation costs of the successful party, including court fees and attorney’s expenses. When each party is only partially successful, the court apportions costs in proportion to the degree of success. The court may also order each party to bear its own expenses or to cover a share of the other party’s costs.

Exceptions apply if a party’s fault or procedural conduct caused unnecessary expenses, in which case that party must bear such costs regardless of the outcome.

When determining the amount of costs to be awarded, the court considers all justified litigation-related expenses, including:

• court fees prescribed by the Regulation on the Tariff of Court Fees;
• advance payments made for procedural expenses;
• expert witness and assessment costs; and
• attorney’s fees, as determined by the Tariff on Rewards and Reimbursement of Costs for the Work of Attorneys.

If the awarded costs are not paid on time, the party is entitled to statutory default interest on such costs, the amount of which is defined in 9.3 Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment Interest.

In the Republic of Croatia, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is increasingly recognised as a mechanism for the efficient and amicable settlement of disputes, particularly in civil and commercial matters. The principal ADR methods formally recognised under the Law on Peaceful Dispute Resolution are mediation and structured negotiations. Of these, mediation is the most widely used, offering a flexible, confidential, and non-adversarial process that can result in a binding and enforceable settlement, provided the agreement contains an enforcement clause.

Structured negotiations, while also endorsed by legislation, typically lack enforceability unless specified by a separate legal provision. ADR is supported by both public and private institutions, including the state-established Centre for Peaceful Dispute Resolution and private bodies, such as the Centre for Mediation at the Croatian Mediation Association. Additionally, chambers such as the Croatian Chamber of Commerce and Croatian Chamber of Trades and Crafts facilitate mediation in their respective fields. European Union Directive 2008/52/EC further reinforces the development of ADR practices in Croatia, aligning them with broader European standards.

Croatian legislation demonstrates a clear policy orientation toward the promotion of ADR, particularly as a preliminary step before litigation. Pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Law on Peaceful Dispute Resolution, parties are required to attempt peaceful settlement in compensation-related disputes prior to initiating court proceedings. However, ADR is not formally integrated into the judicial process, and is instead conducted through independent and voluntary proceedings, facilitated by registered mediators who have completed professional training. Settlements reached through mediation may become enforceable legal instruments if they contain a valid enforcement clause in accordance with Article 20 of the Law on Peaceful Dispute Resolution. Additionally, the Consumer ADR Act exemplifies Croatia’s legislative commitment to enhancing access to ADR, particularly in consumer matters, thereby encouraging parties to resolve disputes outside of lengthy and costly court proceedings.

Institutions offering and promoting ADR in Croatia are organised within a framework that is functional but still evolving. The Centre for Peaceful Dispute Resolution, established by the state, maintains a national register of certified mediators and sets minimum training standards to ensure quality and consistency. Alongside this, private mediation centres, such as the Centre for Mediation at the Croatian Mediation Association, offer a range of services and contribute to the visibility and accessibility of ADR.

Sector-specific bodies, including the Croatian Chamber of Commerce and the Croatian Chamber of Trades and Crafts, have also integrated mediation into their respective institutional frameworks, further broadening the reach of ADR. Moreover, the enactment of the Consumer ADR Act demonstrates the state’s intention to widen access to alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution. While the current system is not yet fully consolidated, it lays a solid foundation for the future professionalisation and expansion of ADR practices in Croatia.

In Croatia, the regulation of arbitral procedures is governed by the Arbitration Act, which establishes the legal framework for both domestic and international arbitration. The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are also governed by this Act, which is in alignment with Croatia’s international obligations under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the Convention).

The Arbitration Act sets forth the limits of arbitrability in Croatia, establishing that arbitration is permissible only for disputes in which the parties have the autonomy to dispose of their rights. However, certain subject matters are categorically excluded from arbitration. These include disputes related to status and family law, such as those affecting personal status or rights that cannot be freely transferred. Additionally, criminal matters are not arbitrable, as they are inherently public in nature and fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of state authorities.

The Arbitration Act provides the criteria for determining arbitrability, requiring an examination of several key factors, including the nature of the dispute and the identities of the parties involved. Only those disputes that involve freely disposable rights and are not contrary to public policy may be referred to arbitration.

A party seeking to challenge an arbitral award in Croatia must file a lawsuit to set aside the award before the competent Croatian court. Grounds for setting aside an award are narrowly defined under the Arbitration Act, and generally align with international standards. Such grounds include:

• breach of the fundamental principles of the Croatian legal system, such as violations of due process or fairness; and
• fraud, corruption, or any severe violation of procedural rights that would render the award invalid.

Arbitral awards are, in principle, final and binding, and the grounds for challenging an award are strictly limited. As such, challenges are an exceptional remedy, available only in instances of substantial procedural defects or violations of the principles of justice. Furthermore, as a matter of res judicata, once an issue has been conclusively determined in arbitration, it may not be re-litigated in subsequent proceedings.

Croatia is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which facilitates the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards within its jurisdiction.

Regarding domestic awards, there is no separate recognition process. The Croatian court will order enforcement of a domestic arbitral award unless it finds that the matter is not arbitrable under Croatian law, that the award violates public policy, or that a previous request to set aside the award on these grounds has been denied.

Examples of instances in which recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be refused would be (i) if the award has been set aside or is not yet binding, or (ii) if its enforcement would violate Croatian public policy, which is narrowly interpreted and limited to breaches of fundamental mandatory rules.

The enforcement of both domestic and foreign awards is carried out through the standard enforcement procedure in Croatia, ensuring that the award is executed in accordance with the regular mechanisms for the enforcement of court judgments.

Croatia’s approach to dispute resolution reform centres on the promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms, such as mediation. Key reforms include the establishment of dedicated ADR centres and the introduction of the Act on the Peaceful Resolution of Disputes, which aims to make ADR more accessible, efficient, and widely known to the public and business communities. These reforms seek to encourage the use of peaceful settlement methods, positioning ADR as a favourable alternative to formal court procedures. In addition to ADR-focused initiatives, there has been an ongoing effort to improve the efficiency of court procedures.

It is worth noting that arbitration has gained significant traction in the market, particularly due to its efficiency, flexibility, and ability to offer a more streamlined process for resolving complex commercial disputes. This trend reflects a broader shift in favour of more flexible and less time-consuming mechanisms for dispute resolution.

The primary area of growth in commercial disputes in Croatia is arbitration, largely due to its significant benefits over traditional court proceedings. Arbitration is increasingly viewed as a preferred method for resolving disputes, particularly in the context of international commercial transactions, owing to its efficiency, confidentiality, and ability to provide more flexible and enforceable outcomes.

In addition to arbitration, third-party funding is also emerging as a significant trend across both the European Union and globally. As this form of funding continues to grow, there is an increasing need for regulatory clarity and the establishment of a legal framework governing third-party funding in Croatia. The rise of this practice signals a shift towards more accessible and resource-efficient methods for litigants in commercial disputes, and it is an area that warrants further legal development to keep pace with international trends.