HUNGARY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Tamás Éless, Zsolt Farkas, Sarolta Szabó and Lili Bischof, Oppenheim Law Firm
Limited Precedent System Although it took place five years ago, the most sig- nificant development in Hungarian civil procedural law remains the introduction of the limited precedent system in April 2020. This system represents a hybrid model that combines elements of both the common law and continental legal traditions. At the lower court level, the limited precedent system requires that if a court departs from a published deci- sion of the Curia (the Supreme Court of Hungary), it must explain in its judgment the reasons for doing so. Likewise, if a party requests a deviation from a Curia decision and the court rejects that request, the judg- ment must include an explanation. Lower courts are therefore not strictly bound by the Curia’s published decisions. However, a departure from such a decision constitutes a specific ground for judicial review by the Curia. It is ultimately for the Curia to decide whether a deviation from its previ- ous precedent is justified. If the Curia determines that the deviation was unjustified, it may annul the lower court’s decision and either issue a new ruling itself or order the lower court to conduct new proceedings and deliver a new judgment. Importantly, the Curia itself may not depart from its previous precedent within a judicial review procedure. If it considers that a change to its earlier position is warranted, it must initiate a law-unification procedure to formally overrule its prior precedent. To ensure the effective operation of the limited prec- edent system, a new form of legal remedy has also been introduced, namely the uniformity complaint procedure ( jogegységi panasz eljárás ). This remedy may be used when the Curia departs from one of its previous precedent-setting decisions without initiating a law-unification procedure. It may also be applied when the Curia, in a judicial review procedure, fails to remedy a violation that arose because a lower court had incorrectly departed from a published precedent- setting decision, even though this violation had been expressly raised in the petition for review. The introduction of the limited precedent system means that both judges and litigating lawyers must
be familiar with the Curia’s published decisions since 2012, as these decisions serve as a quasi-binding interpretation of the written law. Increase in Costs Associated With Litigation The second most significant recent development affecting litigation in Hungary is the substantial increase in the costs associated with legal proceed- ings. As of January 2025, Act XCIII of 1990 on Duties (here- inafter “Duties Act”) was amended and the rate of the court fee for civil proceedings changed. Prior to the amendment, the court fee of the first instance proce- dure was set at 6% of the value of the case, with a maximum of HUF1.5 million. As a result of the new regulations, court fees for the first instance proceedings now increase progres- sively, with no upper limit. Compared to the previous maximum fee of HUF1.5 million, the fees have risen significantly. For a claim of HUF50 million, the fee is approximately HUF2.8 million, and for a claim of HUF100 million, it is approximately HUF4 million. In cases with exceptionally high subject matter values, the increase is particularly substantial. For a claim of HUF5 billion, it is approximately HUF31 million, while for a claim of HUF10 billion, the fee to initiate the law- suit rises to approximately HUF56 million. The amount of the duty of appeal proceedings has not changed, remaining 8% of the value of the case in appeal, but is at least HUF15,000 and no more than HUF2,500,000. Not only has the amount of the court fee increased, but the legal costs that the losing party must reim- burse to the winning party have also risen significantly in recent years. Previously, it was common practice for courts to mod- erate the actual legal costs incurred. However, this practice often resulted in the amount recoverable by the winning party being disconnected from the real market situation. Recognising this anomaly, in April 2024 the Curia issued a precedent-setting decision, explaining in detail that reimbursement of legal costs
429 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook