In practice, the most costly mistakes are not necessarily those related to substantive law, but procedural ones: poorly drafted claims, evidence submitted too late, incomplete defenses or appeals built on what the law allows. The Code of Civil Procedure is based on the idea that the plaintiff must indicate the parties, the object, the factual and legal grounds, as well as the evidence on which each end of the claim is based, and that essential deficiencies can lead to nullity or annulment.
First mistake: the summons to court request is incomplete or unclear
A vague request, without a well-defined object, without a clear factual basis and without properly indicated evidence, gives the court too little and the opponent too much. The law explicitly requires the identification of the parties, the object, the value of the request when applicable, the reasons of fact and law and the evidence for each part of the request. If the essential elements are missing, the request is null; if there are other irregularities, the claimant is called upon to correct them, and failure to fulfill the obligations leads to cancellation.
This is one of the most common mistakes, because many claimants treat the initial request as a simple formality. In reality, it sets the framework of the process and limits what can be saved later.
The second mistake: the the evidence are left „for later”
In civil proceedings, evidence is not improvised at the end. The rule is that the plaintiff proposes the evidence by filing a summons, and the defendant by a counter-summons, subject to the penalty of dismissal, with the exceptions expressly provided by law. If the evidence has not been proposed in time, it can no longer be requested and approved except in the limited cases provided for in Article 254.
The practical mistake is a classic one: the party builds its case around a piece of evidence that it did not request within the deadline or that it only invokes when the case is going badly. At that moment, the discussion is no longer about the usefulness of the evidence, but about failure. The law allows the court to complete the evidence if the proposed one is insufficient, but that does not mean that the party can rely on the judge’s passivity as a strategy.
Third mistake: the defendant does not file a response in time
For the defendant, the appearance is not optional. The Code expressly stipulates that failure to appear within the deadline entails the loss of the right to further submit evidence and invoke exceptions, apart from those of public order, unless the law states otherwise. In other words, procedural silence costs.
Here, the defense often breaks down in practice. The side believes it will be able to „cover up” the deficiencies later, but in civil law, fixed deadlines set the game from the beginning. A good defense does not only mean having arguments, but putting them in the file at the moment when the law allows.
The fourth mistake: they confuse what they claim with what they can prove
The code is very clear: anyone who makes a claim during the trial must prove it, except in specific cases provided by law. It is not enough to claim that you are entitled to a certain amount, that the opponent made a mistake or that a fact is obvious. If you cannot link the claim to a means of proof, it remains only a procedural argument, not an element capable of supporting the decision.
This is a mistake that often occurs in civil litigation where the party relies on intuition, assumptions, or the „logic of the case.” However, the court works with evidence, not with impressions.
The fifth mistake: appeals ask for things that can no longer be asked for
The appeal does not rewrite the process from scratch. By appealing, it is not possible to change the procedural framework established before the first instance court, to formulate new claims, or to change the parties’ status, the cause, or the subject of the request. At the same time, the law allows the administration of new evidence, but within the limits of Articles 478 and 479, and the appellate court refers to what has already been invoked and what results from the discussions.
Here we encounter one of the most risky confusions: the party believes that the appeal is the ideal place to correct everything that was not done in the first instance. In reality, the appeal operates within the limits established by law, and the trial and procedural strategy must be built from the initial stage of the case. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has confirmed that the rules regarding new evidence in an appeal must be strictly read in relation to the regime of the evidence proposed in the first instance.
Sixth mistake: the role of regularization is not understood
Many litigants treat the initial review of the application as a minor administrative step. In reality, the court immediately verifies whether the application falls within its jurisdiction and meets the legal requirements, and any deficiencies are communicated to the claimant for rectification, subject to cancellation. This step is not formal but decisive for effective access to the merits of the case.
When the case is built poorly, the process can be blocked before it reaches the substantive discussion. That is why a good part of the „victories” or „defeats” in civil cases takes place before the first serious hearing.
Conclusion
The most common mistakes in civil disputes are not spectacular, but they are decisive: incomplete applications, evidence lost through default, claims filed too late, claims that cannot be proven and appeals made beyond the limits of the procedure. The Code of Civil Procedure not only penalizes the lack of fairness, but also the lack of procedural rigor.
In civil litigation, the difference between a good case and a lost one often appears not at the end, but in the early stages of the proceedings. That is why strategy, time, and evidence must be considered together, not separately.
Legal texts: For the updated form and the application in question, see Code of Civil Procedure, In particular, Articles 194, 196, 200, 208, 254 and 478–479. The deadlines and sanctions depend on the specific situation and the exceptions provided by law.
