The institution of litigation costs plays an important role in procedural relations: on the one hand, it ensures the realization of the right of parties to judicial protection and qualified legal assistance; on the other hand, it creates a balance of interests among participants in judicial proceedings, acting as both an economic incentive and a barrier in the exercise of the right of access to court. However, the fragmented legal regulation of this institution, the presence of conflicting provisions in its regulation, and the absence of a unified judicial approach to a number of theoretical and practical issues concerning the allocation of litigation costs result in divergent development of judicial practice. In this context, issues related to the reimbursement of litigation costs incurred in connection with various procedural actions become particularly relevant, among which the imposition of a judicial fine is of special interest. Owing to its specific features, namely: its public law nature, dependence on judicial discretion, the possibility of its application at any stage of the proceedings at the initiative of different actors, and on the grounds provided by law, this procedural institution gives rise to differing approaches in judicial practice regarding the reimbursement of litigation costs incurred in connection with the imposition of a judicial fine. In the paper, the author examines the variability and specific features of arbitrazh courts’ positions on this issue, analyzes the reasons for such divergence, identifies existing problems, and proposes ways to address them.