Parties need to co-operate to resolve their dispute consensually. This duty has developed into a common European standard over the last two decades. The objective is to avoid any misuse of procedure. It is also about saving resources and especially about conflict resolution. By confirming a settlement, a dispute is solved not only juridically but also from the psychological and sociological perspective. When reaching a settlement, the parties can also affect the contents of the solution. To promote friendly settlements and ADR it is significant to reach equivalent effects through a settlement compared with a judgment. Even though a confirmed settlement is enforceable, there are some other effects which may be weaker when a confirmed settlement is compared with a judgment. For instance, it is disputed whether res judicata covers confirmed settlements in the same way as a judgment. Even though, the parties are not able to unilaterally enlarge the court’s powers as defined by law, it is important to recognize the value of allowing parties to reach a settlement that includes matters not strictly covered by the legal dispute before the court. It is the parties who should be satisfied with the result, not the court. Therefore, the court should confirm even settlements which are not only judicial but include other aspects too, like an apology. Even the correspondence with substantive law should be interpreted quite flexibly, to cover as many contracts as possible.