О допустимости мировых соглашений, отрицающих допроцессуальный фактический состав

Abstract

The article substantiates the need to distinguish settlement agreements of two types: agreements based on recognition by the parties of the pre-procedural set of facts alleged in the claim or objections to it, and settlement agreements concluded with a continuous denial by the parties of the facts alleged in the litigation documents. Settlement agreements of the first type have as their content the disposal of rights and obligations arising from the facts, directly or implicitly recognised by the parties by entering into this agreement, and can be checked for their compliance with the material law governing these rights and obligations. Settlement agreements of the second type cannot be checked for compliance with the material law, because their subject is exclusively a termination of a judicial dispute, without determining the fate of the disputed rights and obligations, since the existence of the latter is denied. Termination of the dispute should be recognised as an independent basis (causa) of property provision — the latter is committed by the parties to the settlement agreements of the second type solely as consideration for reaching a procedural compromise, and not in fulfilment of the obligations that have become the subject of the dispute.