HUNGARY Law and Practice Contributed by: István Varga and Viktor Előd Cserép, PROVARIS Varga & Partners
The substantive phase In the substantive phase, further rounds of sub- missions may be exchanged, and this is the phase for the actual taking of evidence. Parties have only restricted opportunities to state new facts and amend their claim and defence. At least one hearing must be held. Second (appeal) and third (revision) instance proceedings In appeal proceedings and in revision proceed- ings before the Kúria , parties generally request a hearing and the court may also hold one sua sponte if necessary, so that hearings constitute the main rule in practice even if the general rule in the CCP does not make it compulsory. 7.2 Case Management Hearings In the preparatory phase, courts typically hold (at least) one preparatory hearing, the aim of which is to delimitate the scope of the proceed- ings through identifying and fixing the claims, defences, statements of facts and law, and the accompanying evidence. If the court deems it effective, it may also continue the preparatory hearing as a substantive hearing (in more simple cases) at the same time and close the proceed- ings. Otherwise, the court issues an order clos- ing the preparatory phase. 7.3 Jury Trials in Civil Cases No jury trials are available in Hungary. However, the participation of laypersons is provided for in first instance labour disputes, where three- member senates consisting of one professional judge and two laypersons adjudicate. 7.4 Rules That Govern Admission of Evidence Statements of fact and evidentiary motions are made in the preparatory phase. The taking of
evidence takes place in the substantive phase, within the frames determined in the preparatory phase. In the substantive phase, different or new state- ments of fact may be made (within a subjective deadline of 15 days) only if a party states a fact that it became aware of (with no fault on its part) after the order closing the preparatory phase had been issued, or a fact that occurred after that. Additionally, a new statement of fact may also be made if such fact became relevant in view of the aforementioned scenarios. The parties’ possibilities to make evidentiary motions and adduce evidence are also limited in the substantive phase and are restricted to the scenarios when the motion or the evidence adduced serves to: • prove a fact that serves as the basis of a par- ty’s claim or defence, and that the party only became aware of (with no fault on its part) after the order closing the preparatory phase had been issued, or that occurred thereafter; • refute the probative value of evidence or the result of evidence-taking (provided that the party could ascertain the means of taking evi- dence to refute said evidence in view of the evidence-taking that has taken place); • prove or refute facts that the party relies on as the ground for amending its statement of claim or defence (provided that the court has admitted the amendment, see 3.4 Initial Complaint ); • justify or refute a new factual statement; and/ or • when it has become necessary to take or adduce evidence because of the effect of the court’s conduct of the proceedings on the scope of the proceedings (see 7.7 Level of Intervention by a Judge).
563 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook