The new Hungarian Code of Civil Procedure, which entered into force this year, has been making life more difficult for those seeking legal redress for almost a year now through the numerous technical detailed rules it introduced, many of which we consider unnecessary. As a result, initiating litigation in Hungary has become significantly more difficult. Claimants often face situations in which they do not even get as far as the courtroom, because the court rejects their statement of claim almost automatically.<\/p>\n
According to its explanatory memorandum, the new Code of Civil Procedure is based on Slovenian and Lithuanian procedural-law traditions. In our view, it would have been more appropriate to adopt the provisions of the German ZPO, which formed the basis of the Hungarian regulation and often even corresponded to the former Hungarian Code of Civil Procedure by section number. This could primarily have promoted more concentrated litigation and genuine substantive case management. If the legislature had insisted on a divided procedural structure consisting of a preparatory phase and a hearing on the merits, it could have drawn on the Austrian procedural statute. Instead, the legislature introduced rules that are entirely detached from practical reality. In practice, these rules do not appear to serve the swift resolution of disputes, for example by encouraging judges to seek settlement; rather, judges seem to obstruct effective legal enforcement by insisting on bureaucratic technical details.<\/p>\n
The most striking example of this is that, due to the omission \u2014 whether alleged or real \u2014 of certain \u201cmagic words\u201d, it may not even be possible to initiate proceedings, because the court rejects the statement of claim at the outset. At this point, in our view, serious misunderstandings arise on the part of the courts. Judges \u2014 hopefully only at this initial stage \u2014 do not appear able to distinguish between the admissibility of a claim (Zul\u00e4ssigkeit) and its merits (Begr\u00fcndetheit). A statement of claim does not need to prove everything in itself; otherwise, the procedural concepts of disputed and undisputed facts would have no purpose. Rather, it must contain a clear and coherent presentation of the facts and evidence, i.e. a conclusive statement of claim (schl\u00fcssiger Klagevortrag).<\/p>\n
Even simply because legal literature on the new institutions is available in commonly used languages such as English and German, it would have been advisable to draw on classic rather than exotic codes. This would have made it possible to examine relevant foreign legal literature and case law substantively, with a view to developing Hungarian legal interpretation. We consider it rather unlikely that Hungarian courts will consult Lithuanian or Slovenian-language commentaries in order to interpret certain issues.<\/p>\n
Overall, we therefore recommend to all our existing and prospective clients that, whenever there is a choice of forum \u2014 for example in cases involving foreign deliveries or multiple branches \u2014 they should, for the time being, bring proceedings before a foreign court. If you are also interested in initiating proceedings abroad, please do not hesitate to contact us.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The new Hungarian Code of Civil Procedure, which entered into force this year, has been making life more difficult for those seeking legal redress for almost a year now through the numerous technical detailed rules it introduced, many of which we consider unnecessary. As a result, initiating litigation in Hungary has become significantly more difficult. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":55325,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-en"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t