Can a Party in a Civil Dispute Lie in Court?
To succeed in a dispute, a party must assert the relevant facts (duty to assert) and provide evidence to prove its assertions (duty of proof).
In legal matters everyone must act with fairness. The principle of fairness is also fundamental in civil litigation, and part of this principle is the duty of truthfulness. Under Slovak Civil Procedure Code[1], the duty of truthfulness is explicitly stipulated within the provisions of duty to assert. Under the CPC, a party must truthfully and fully provide essential factual assertions.[2]
Although not explicitly laid down in the CPC, the duty of truthfulness also applies to the duty of proof (since the duty to assert and the duty of proof are equivalent, the duty of truthfulness extends to both obligations).
The duty of truthfulness encompasses the following specific obligations for parties:
- truthfully stating all relevant facts of which they are aware;
- presenting all available evidence;
- not intentionally presenting false facts or half-truths (i.e. stating only some facts while concealing others);
- not intentionally withholding evidence they possess or presenting false evidence.
The duty of truthfulness is subjective — only intentional lies or intentional half-truths are prohibited.
Violating this duty may result in the following negative consequences.
Disregarding Asserted Facts: If the court finds that a party intentionally lied, it will evaluate this to the party’s detriment. This might result in the court not including the false fact in the factual conclusions on which it bases its decision.
Losing the Case: The court might consider the lying party to be untrustworthy. This will reflect in the overall evaluation of the case — due to the proven lie of one party, the court may consider its other assertions and evidence less credible than those of the opposing party. This would result in the court deciding against the party that lied.
Liability for Violating Personality Rights: If a party intentionally provides false facts which have a defamatory character (i.e., they damage the reputation of an affected person, usually the opposing party), this constitutes a breach of the personality rights of the affected person.[3] The affected person may seek compensation from the violator for non-pecuniary damage (in the form of an apology or financial compensation).
Criminal Liability: We will discuss the intentional submission of false evidence and intentional false assertions separately.
The assessment of intentionally submitting false evidence is straightforward. The Slovak Criminal Code[4] explicitly classifies this as the crime of obstructing justice.[5]
Intentional false assertions, on the other hand, present a more complex issue. The CC does not explicitly define such conduct as a crime. However, the courts have debated whether such conduct may constitute fraud.
Fraud occurs when someone enriches themselves or another to the detriment of another’s property by misleading them.[6]
Until recently, the dominant opinion in judicial practice held that intentional false assertions in court proceedings do not constitute fraud. This view was based mainly on a 2005 decision[7] of the Czech Supreme Court, which stated that such conduct does not constitute fraud because a court cannot be misled (misleading someone is a required element of fraud).
In our view, this opinion is incorrect for several reasons. First, the CC does not distinguish between the persons the fraudster may mislead. A literal interpretation suggests that anyone (including a court) can be deceived.
Second, there is no logical reason to exclude a judge from the group of people who can be misled. In other words, judges should not be considered immune to deception.
Third, since the duty to assert and the duty of proof are equivalent and since intentional submission of false evidence is criminalized, then intentional false assertions should also be criminalized.
Fourth, in related legal systems (Austria, Germany, and Poland), it is recognized that a party can commit fraud by intentionally providing false facts in court proceedings. These legal systems clarify that not all false assertions in a dispute are criminal. Only intentional false assertions concerning relevant facts —those essential to the court’s decision — are criminal.
It is irrelevant, whether the court actually rules in favour of the fraudster based on the false statement. The crime is already committed by the intentional false assertion about a relevant fact.
Based on the above arguments, the Czech Supreme Court recently revised its stance on the criminality of intentional false assertions in court. On March 2024, its grand chamber issued a decision,[8] stating that intentionally providing false facts in court proceedings can deceive the court (mislead it), and (if other legal conditions are met) may constitute the crime of fraud.
Since the legal provisions on fraud are the same in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the conclusions of the Czech Supreme Court are also applicable in Slovakia.
Conclusion: A party must not intentionally lie in court proceedings. If a lie is discovered, they risk not only losing the dispute but also, under certain conditions, being required to compensate the affected person for non-pecuniary damage (for the violation of their personality rights) and facing criminal liability for such conduct.
[1] Act No. 160/2015 Coll. the Civil Procedure Code, as amended (hereinafter also referred to as “CPC“).
[2] Section 150 (1) of the CPC.
[3] See for example the decisions of the Czech Supreme Court, Case No. 30 Cdo 2455/2010, 30 Cdo 3024/2011, 30 Cdo 4247/2015, etc.
[4] Act No. 300/2005 Coll. The Criminal Code, as amended (hereinafter also referred to as “CC”).
[5] Section 344(1) of the CC.
[6] Section 221(1) of the CC.
[7] The decision of the Czech Supreme Court dated 28 April 2005, Case No. 11 Tdo 229/2004, which was published as a case law in the Collection of Decisions of the Czech Supreme Court under No. 24/2006.
[8] The decision of the Czech Supreme Court dated 19 March 2024, Case No. 15 Tdo 960/2023.
The Author: JUDr. Pavol Chrenko
