HUNGARY Law and Practice Contributed by: Tamás Éless, Zsolt Farkas, Sarolta Szabó and Lili Bischof, Oppenheim Law Firm
5.3 Discovery in This Jurisdiction The Hungarian CCP does not allow for discovery in civil cases. 5.4 Alternatives to Discovery Mechanisms The CCP is based on the principle of freedom of proof. Thus, generally speaking, all types of evidence are admissible, but in most cases, evidence is presented to the court in the form of written documents. Howev- er, the CCP does not consider statements by a party or the party’s representative as evidence, but may take them into account when establishing the facts. Although there is no discovery in Hungarian civil pro- cedure, the CCP introduced the notion of an “eviden- tiary predicament”. An evidentiary predicament exists when a party is able to substantiate, with a probable degree of certainty, that: • the other party possesses all the relevant informa- tion for his or her motion of evidence and that the party has taken appropriate measures to obtain that information; • the party is unable to prove its statements but the opposing party can reasonably be expected to refute the alleged facts; or • evidence could not be successfully produced due to reasons attributable to the opposing party. The other party may decide to attach the means of proof or, failing this, give reasons for why the condi- tions of the evidentiary predicament are not present. If the judge is satisfied on this point, the legal con- sequence of an evidentiary predicament is that the factual statement(s) which the disadvantaged party sought to prove may be accepted as true. The CCP does not set out restrictions on what types of evidence can be requested in case of an evidentiary predicament. 5.5 Legal Privilege All facts, information and data of which a lawyer gained knowledge in the course of carrying out his or her professional activities qualify as attorney–client
privileged information. As a general rule, the lawyer shall keep all attorney–client privileged information confidential, including any documents. The lawyer shall refuse to give testimony or report on attorney–client privileged information in any court pro- cedures unless he or she was exempted from his or her obligation of confidentiality by the person entitled to grant such attorney–client privileged information. However, no exemption may be validly granted for making a testimony and reporting on any attorney– client privileged information obtained as a defence counsel. With regard to documents containing business secrets, professional secrets, or any other secret specified by Hungarian acts, the parties, other persons participat- ing in the procedure and their representatives may only access documents subject to the order and rules set by the presiding judge, and after making a written statement on undertaking the duty to preserve any such secret. If the person entitled to grant an exemp- tion from confidentiality declares in due time that he or she does not consent to the inspection of the document, no part of the document containing such secrets may be inspected by any person other than the court, the keeper of the minutes or the transcriber. 5.6 Rules Disallowing Disclosure of a Document As discovery is not defined, no special rules exist that would allow a party not to disclose a document. However, the consequences of not proving or unsuc- cessfully proving a fact shall be borne by the party who is obliged to prove that fact – ie, the party with an interest in having the fact accepted by the court as true. 6. Injunctive Relief 6.1 Circumstances of Injunctive Relief The Awarding of Injunctive Relief Injunctive relief can be awarded in four categories of cases:
417 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook