Contributed by Oppenheim.
1. General Trends
1.1. What is the current state of litigation in your jurisdiction, and what recent trends or developments have been observed?
Pursuant to the Fundamental Law of Hungary, the operation of the Hungarian state is based on the principle of the distribution of powers: the task of the dispensation of justice belongs to the courts. Courts render decisions in criminal and civil law cases, on the legality of public administration decisions, in some cases in relation to the local governments, and in other cases prescribed by law.
The judicial organization is one of the basic pillars of the Hungarian rule of law.
The new civil procedure code, i.e., Act CXXX of 2016 on Civil Procedures (hereinafter “CCP”) came into force on 1 January 2018, which has brought some changes with itself.
Under the new CCP, the admissibility requirements for the statement of claim have been raised and courts tend to review more and more substantial aspects of the case already when investigating the admissibility of the statement of claim despite admissibility should be a formal check, only.
The CCP introduced new rules, according to which the first instance procedure is divided into two distinct stages: the preparatory stage and the evidentiary stage. The aim of the preparatory stage is to define the scope of the dispute (facts, motions for evidence, and the claim enforced). Once the preparatory stage is closed, the court immediately moves on to the main stage. In this phase, the court conducts the evidentiary procedure within the framework defined in the preparatory stage and decides on the case.
Overall, therefore, the role and responsibility of the parties in case management has seriously increased.
The amendments of rules on procedural fees and the courts’ practice of reimbursing lawyers’ fees, which is making litigation increasingly expensive, seem to be part of this tendency.
As of January 2025, Act XCIII of 1990 on Duties (hereinafter “Duties Act”) was amended and the rate of the duty for civil proceedings at first instance changed. Prior to the amendment, the duty was set at 6% of the value of the case, with a maximum of HUF 1,500,000. As a result of the amendment, the duty is uniformly HUF 18,000 if the value in dispute is HUF 300,000 or less. If the value in dispute is above HUF 300,000, the rate of the duty is set differently in 8 bands depending on the value in dispute. In each band, the duty payable is a fixed amount plus a percentage of the amount exceeding the lower limit of the band. In essence, the amendment seriously increases the duty for litigation, especially by abolishing the upper limit of the duty.
These changes may also affect litigation funding, which is not yet widespread in Hungary, but may become more common as a result of higher litigation costs.
Overall, statistics from the years following the entry into force of the new law show that the number of cases initiated has decreased compared to previous years and that the resolution of cases, in general, has also become faster.
Furthermore, the function of the Supreme Court is shifting away from the judicial review function towards guaranteeing the uniformity of the judicial system. Following the recent introduction of a limited precedent system in Hungary, legal unity is ensured primarily through the published decisions of the Supreme Court. This is because the published decisions of the Supreme Court are not to be departed from by lower courts. If, for some reason, the judge of a lower court in a particular case does wish to deviate from the precedent of the Supreme Court, he may do so, but must explicitly state the reasons for the departure in his decision. The question of whether a deviation from precedent is appropriate can also be challenged on appeal and in a review procedure. Nor can the Supreme Court itself deviate from its own previously published decisions, even if it gives reasons for the deviation. If the Supreme Court itself wishes to deviate or considers it appropriate that the lower court has deviated, it must initiate a uniformity procedure.
As a further aspect, Hungary has been gradually implementing digital solutions in civil litigation, such as electronic case filing and electronic communication with courts.
The COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences accelerated the adoption of online hearings of witnesses, though their widespread use remains limited compared to traditional in-person hearings of witnesses.
1.2. What are the key legal frameworks that regulate litigation?
The main legal instrument that governs civil court litigation is the CCP (Act CXXX of 2016 on Civil Procedures). The rules on procedural fees of court litigation are set out in the Duties Act (Act XCIII of 1990 on duties).
The main legal instrument that governs the enforcement of judicial decisions is Act LIII of 1994 on Judicial Enforcement.
In case of cross-border, European Union-related cases, the respective EU Regulations apply, such as the Brussels Ia Regulations, the Brussels IIa Regulation, the Rome I Regulation, the Rome II Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters and Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.
In case of cross-border disputes, Act XXVIII of 2017 on Private International Law might also come into consideration.
Last but not least, the Fundamental Law of Hungary may also become relevant in relation to certain general rules, such as questions of interpretation as the driving principle of interpretation is that legal provisions must be in accordance with common sense.
2. Jurisdiction and Competence
2.1. How is the court system structured in your jurisdiction?
Hungary’s judicial system has four levels: local courts (in Hungarian: “jarasbirosag”), county courts (in Hungarian: “torvenyszek”), higher courts of appeal (in Hungarian: “itelotabla”), and the Supreme Court (in Hungarian: “Kuria”). Local courts conduct proceedings as a first instance in most of the cases. County courts proceed at first instance in cases specified by the CCP (e. g. where the disputed amount exceeds HUF 30 million) and review the appeals submitted against the first instance judgments and orders of local courts. Higher courts of appeal proceed as the second instance of county courts.
The Supreme Court has jurisdictional powers such as considering appeals (in the course of an appeal before a court of appeal, that court adopts an order against which an appeal may be lodged in accordance with the rules of first instance procedure, it is for the Supreme Court to hear that appeal) and reviewing final and binding judgments as an extraordinary legal remedy.
The Supreme Court also has powers to guarantee the uniformity of the judicial system by analyzing the practice of Hungarian courts and publishing decisions on principles to be followed by lower courts, and also in the context of review proceedings (legal supervision) and uniformity complaint proceedings.
In the context of the review proceedings, the uniformity of the judicial system may come to relevance as the Supreme Court may permit the review even if it is, as a general rule, not allowed, if examination of the violation of law that affects the merits of the case is justified on grounds of ensuring the consistency or development of jurisprudence, or the exceptional weight or social significance of the question of law raised, and shall permit if, concerning a question of law, the judgment dissents from a published decision of the Supreme Court.
Further, the uniformity complaint procedure is an important tool in the Supreme Court’s role of unifying case law. A uniformity complaint may be lodged against a decision of the Supreme Court if the application for review already referred to a deviation from a decision of the Supreme Court (issued after January 1, 2012), and the Supreme Court has not remedied the infringement caused by the deviation in its decision. A uniformity complaint is also admissible if the Supreme Court deviates from its published decision in such a way that the given deviation was not made in the decision of the lower courts. Thus, the harmonization of the adjudication of legal issues by means of a uniform interpretation is a unifying task of the Supreme Court.
2.2. Are there specialized courts for specific types of litigation?
As a general rule, there are no specialized courts for specific types of litigation. Although courts hearing civil cases are currently not organisationally separate from courts hearing administrative and labor cases, these cases are adjudicated by different collegiums of the courts, and these types of cases have their separate or partially separate rules of procedure.
It shall also be noted that commercial cases, i.e., disputes between legal persons, and civil cases, i.e., disputes between an individual and a legal person or between two individuals, are also different at the level of the collegiums, i.e., they are heard by different collegiums. Overall, therefore, specialized expertise is provided, although the different cases are judged according to mainly the same set of rules.
According to the CCP, legal representation is mandatory during the litigation procedure, except in actions falling within the subject-matter jurisdiction of district courts, including appeals and retrial procedures, or for the party submitting a statement of defense in a review procedure related to an action falling within the subject-matter jurisdiction of district courts. For specific types of litigation, the CCP may provide otherwise, such as in case of labor cases, where legal representation is not mandatory.
2.3. How is jurisdiction determined in cross-border litigation, especially in cases involving foreign parties or multiple jurisdictions?
In Hungary, jurisdiction in cross-border litigation, especially involving foreign parties or multiple jurisdictions, is primarily determined by the rules set out in international treaties and EU regulations, as well as Hungarian domestic laws.
Within the European Union, the Brussels Ia Regulation [Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012] generally governs jurisdiction. It establishes rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters among EU member states. Accordingly, in principle, common rules of jurisdiction apply when the defendant is domiciled in a European Union Member State, as set out in the Brussels Ia Regulation. Furthermore, the Brussels IIa Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003] regulates jurisdiction in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility forms. In the areas covered by EU law, the national legislator is left with no possibility to regulate jurisdiction.
The applicability of national rules is also limited by the international conventions to which Hungary is a party since if such convention exists, it is applicable instead of national legislation. Such conventions are for example the 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and bilateral legal aid treaties.
In cases not covered by EU regulations or international treaties, Act XXVIII of 2017 on Private International Law provides additional rules for determining jurisdiction. This includes rules on exclusive and excluded grounds of jurisdiction, jurisdiction in property matters, and family and personal law matters.
Hungarian law – similarly to the Brussels Ia Regulation – accepts choice of court agreements, which is defined by Act XXVIII of 2017 on Private International Law as an agreement concluded by the parties that designates, for the purpose of deciding disputes which have arisen or may arise in connection with a particular action relating to property law, the courts of a State or one or more specific courts of a State. Such agreements on jurisdiction are widely recognized and reciprocity is not required for their recognition in Hungary. However, the rules on exclusive or excluded jurisdiction are a limitation on the freedom to choose the forum, since by their very nature, they cannot be overridden.
3. Initiating Litigation
3.1. What are the primary steps required to initiate litigation in your jurisdiction?
The court proceeding shall be initiated by the claimant through a statement of claim which has extensive formal and content requirements. If the statement of claim complies with the formal and content requirements and the procedural prerequisites are met, e.g., Hungarian courts’ jurisdiction is not excluded and another State’s courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over the case, the court in which the letter of claim was filed with has competence over the case, the procedural duty was paid, etc., the proceeding court serves the letter of claim on the defendant and requests the defendant to submit its statement of defense within the statutory time-limit. The legal effects of the commencement of the lawsuit (e.g., lis pendens) are deemed to be established upon serving the – formally and substantively admissible – statement of claim on the defendant together with a summons, and, in principle, the procedure becomes a three-phase procedure at this moment. This means that from the date of commencement until the conclusion of the proceedings, no further proceedings may be brought between the same parties for the same right arising from the same factual basis. Any subsequent statement of claim to this effect must be considered inadmissible or, if the existence of lis pendens is subsequently discovered, the proceedings must be terminated.
The duration of this phase is approximately 1.5-3 months, depending on whether there were any deficiencies in the statement of claim, which may be supplemented, or corrected.
The legal effects of filing a statement of claim (e.g., interruption of time-bar) shall persist even if the statement of claim is rejected on formal grounds if the plaintiff duly files, with reference to the history of the case, the new statement of claim, again, or duly enforces his claim otherwise, within thirty days after the order on rejection becomes final and binding, this may prolong the proceedings with further 2-3 month.
3.2. Are there any specific requirements for parties regarding pre-litigation procedures?
Any overdue claim of a pecuniary nature only, whose amount does not exceed HUF 3 million may first be recovered by way of a payment order procedure only, or by attempting a settlement in a mediation procedure, provided that the parties have a known domestic address and the pecuniary claim does not originate from an employment legal relationship. In the case of a payment order procedure, the notary issues a payment order which, if not contested by the debtor, becomes final and enforceable. However, if the debtor contests the order for payment by filing an opposition, the proceedings are transformed into a lawsuit. The debtor shall not put forward any argument or evidence on why he contests the claim included in the payment order.
A European Payment Order Procedure is also available as an alternative means of enforcing a claimant’s overdue pecuniary claim in cross-border civil and commercial matters.
The procedure is governed in particular by Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. In Hungary, public notaries are competent for this procedure as well. In this procedure too, the notary can issue an order for payment, which may be opposed by the debtor, in which case, the procedure turns into a lawsuit.
Before commencing a lawsuit, sending a cease-and-desist letter is not obligatory in legal disputes. Regardless of the requirements, it is common in Hungary to send a cease-and-desist letter to the other party in order to open a dialogue. In general, cease and desist letters define the infringing act, demand that the addressee should cease the infringement, and might request certain data regarding the damages or breach of the contract.
4. Timelines
4.1. What are the typical timelines for different stages of litigation, from initiation to resolution?
Once the plaintiff has filed the statement of claim to the competent court, as a general rule, the court shall have 30 days to examine the statement of claim. If it complies with the respective requirements, the court delivers the statement of claim to the defendant – requesting the defendant to present a written statement of defense within 45 days from the date of delivery of the statement of claim. At a reasoned request by the defendant, the court may, as an exceptional measure, extend the time limit for submitting a written statement of defense by up to forty-five days.
The defendant may file a counter-claim against the plaintiff for the enforcement of a right arising from the same legal relationship as the right to be enforced by the statement of counter-claim. A statement of counter-claim shall be submitted within 45 days after the communication of the claim or the time limit for submitting a statement of defense, as extended by the court, but at the same time as submitting a written statement of defense at the latest.
The defendant may set off his claim against the claim of the plaintiff in a set-off document submitted in writing within 45 days of communicating the claim or within a time limit as extended by the court for submitting a statement of defense.
If there were any deficiencies in the statement of claim, that can be remedied, the court calls upon the claimant to remedy the deficiencies, which may prolong the proceedings by approximately one month.
Under the CCP, the court will automatically issue a court injunction (as a summary judgment, in Hungarian: “birosagi meghagyas”) if the defendant fails to present its statement of defense within 45 days counting from the receipt of the statement of claim or within a time limit as extended by the court for submitting a statement of defense or if the defendant only disputes the claim in general terms. In the court injunction, all remedies shall be ordered by the court as requested by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, any of the parties may file, within 15 days from delivery, an opposition against the injunction, and provided this is duly accompanied by a proper statement of defense, the court injunction loses its effect and the case continues.
If the defendant submits a statement of defense, the procedure continues as follows.
The first instance procedure is divided into two distinct stages: the preparatory stage and the evidentiary stage. The aim of the preparatory stage is to define the scope of the dispute. After the submission of the statement of defense, the court shall either (i) order further written preparation of the case, (ii) schedule a preparatory hearing or (iii) proceed without further written preparation or scheduling of hearing.
In complex cases, courts usually order another round of written preparation of the case, meaning that each party shall submit one more document reflecting the previous documents (rebuttal to the statement of defense and rejoinder to the rebuttal).
After the written preparation (4-6 months from the submission of the statement of claim depending on the number of rounds), the courts schedule a preparatory hearing. The court may “postpone” the preparatory hearing in certain cases, as set out in the CCP, which means that it will continue the preparatory hearing on the next occasion. Usually, there are two preparatory hearing days in complex cases. It usually takes 6-8 months from the submission of the statement of claim until the court closing the preparatory stage.
Once the preparatory stage is closed, the court immediately moves on to the evidentiary stage. In this phase, the court conducts the evidentiary procedure within the framework defined in the preparatory stage and decides on the case. In the evidentiary stage, parties are generally not allowed to change their previous statements or adduce further evidence.
As an exception to this rule, subsequent taking of evidence may be adduced, if the party becomes aware after the closing of the preparatory phase of certain evidence that proves or disproves a fact that was otherwise known at the preparatory phase, or of the relevance of the evidence as a counter-evidence as a result of the evidence already adduced. Subsequent evidence shall also be admissible, if it has become necessary as a result of the material legal information (guidance re substance of the case) provided by the court or if it is intended to prove or disprove a fact relied on as the basis for a change of statement of claim or defense authorized by the court. The motion for evidence or the evidence may be submitted by the party within fifteen days after becoming aware of it or after the other event giving rise to the subsequent taking of evidence occurred.
In simple cases, the judgment is issued on the first oral hearing of the evidentiary stage, in more complicated matters, especially if witnesses or experts must be heard, more than one oral hearing may be necessary.
One of the most important purposes of the CCP was to accelerate the court proceedings, and generally, simple cases decided quicker since the introduction of the CCP.
The first instance judgment in a simple case can be issued already at the first oral hearing, usually within 8-10 months from filing the claim. In more complicated cases including witness and expert evidencing, a first-instance judgment may be expected within 18-24 months.
An appeal lies against the first instance judgment which is to be filed within 15 days following the delivery of the written judgment. The appeal procedure may take 6-10 months from issuing the first instance judgment.
4.2. Are there specific time limits for filing claims, and do these vary depending on the type of dispute?
There are specific time limits for filing certain claims, set out in various Hungarian acts. The CCP does not include such a time limit, though, it sets out that if the plaintiff misses a time limit specified by law for bringing the action, the court shall reject the statement of claim – i.e., consider it inadmissible – without issuing a notice to remedy deficiencies.
As set out in the Supreme Court Civil Uniformity Decision 4/2003, the time limit for bringing an action laid down by law is of a substantive nature, to which the provisions of the CCP on time limit and default do not apply. It means that the statement of claim must reach the court by the end of working hours on the last day of the time-limit.
Specific time limits for the filing of a statement of claim are regulated, for example, by Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code in relation to the protection of property possessions and the annulment of corporate decisions, Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code in relation to the contestation of certain employer’s statements, Act CXXXIII of 2003 on condominiums in relation to the contestation of condominium decisions, and Act LX of 2017 on arbitration in relation to the action for the set-aside of an arbitral award.
It is to be noted that the statute of limitations can only be considered by courts if one of the parties pleads that the claim is time-barred (not ex officio) and the court shall decide on the statute of limitation in its judgment on the merits.
Furthermore, the claim’s premature nature is also a matter for the merits of the case and the court shall decide on it in its judgment.
5. Interim Measures
5.1. What interim remedies are available in your jurisdiction?
The CCP does not specify in detail what kind of interim measures a party may request but states that the interim measure may consist of an obligation to behave in a way that the plaintiff would be entitled to demand on the basis of the right asserted in the lawsuit. The claim and the request for interim measures do not necessarily have to be identical, but an interim measure cannot be granted for a request that is not at issue in the lawsuit.
The interim measure must therefore always remain within the limits of the right asserted. It also follows that an interim measure may not only require an action but also oblige to refrain from an action if this can be inferred from the applicable substantive law.
For example, as an interim measure in damages actions, the court may order the defendant to pay the plaintiff a certain amount of monthly compensation for costs. An interim measure in the context of a breach of a trade secret may be an order that the court prohibits the defendant from disclosing the information that has come to its knowledge. In a property lawsuit, an order to maintain the status quo, to prevent any conversion, may be issued.
5.2. Under what circumstances can a party obtain an interim injunction, and how quickly can such relief be granted?
Interim measures can be imposed in four categories of cases.
According to the CCP, under the first category, the court may order an interim measure in order to prevent any change to the current situation, if it would be impossible to restore the original situation subsequently.
The measure in this case is intended to prevent irreversible changes to the status quo. This rule reflects the legislator’s intention that the maintenance of the status quo, the prevention of any change, is in itself a legitimate interest, but only if failure to do so would lead to irreversible consequences.
A change of state is not irreversible if the original state can be restored only at a considerable cost. However, a change may be irreversible if the restoration (e.g., repair) would result in a significant diminution in the value of the original object.
Interim measures of the second category may be ordered to ensure that it would not become impossible for the requesting party to exercise his rights subsequently.
The aim is to prevent the subsequent failure to exercise the right. It is to be noted, on the one hand, that the specific form of subsequent exercise of the right must be based on the party’s substantive right and, on the other hand, that the possibility of subsequent exercise of the right must also follow from the right asserted in the lawsuit. Thus, for example, the destruction of the reputation of an infringed trademark by means of substandard products may prevent the subsequent exercise of rights based on the trademark, thus an interim measure prohibiting the other party from such conduct may be ordered.
According to the third category, interim measures may be ordered to avert any imminent threat of harm to the requesting party.
In this case, the requirement for the interim measure to be ordered is that the consequence is likely to occur in the future, though has not been proven yet, and is likely to be unlawful. An order for the interim measure is not only justified in situations where there is a threat of damage to property but also in situations where there is a threat of damage to non-material values. These two consequences are covered together by the concept of “harm.” However, the threat of loss of pecuniary advantage is not covered.
For an order to be issued, the requesting party must be in imminent danger of harm which is attributable to the unlawful conduct of the other party and the prevention of which is reasonable by means of interim measures, if the repetition of such unlawful conduct or the continuation of the unlawful situation is likely to cause harm.
Finally, under the fourth ground for granting interim measures, the CCP gives the courts discretion by allowing such measures for any special and equitable reason. Whether this is the case is however strictly interpreted by the courts, which only grant such requests in a narrow range of circumstances.
According to the CCP, the court shall adjudicate the request for interim measures as a matter of priority and shall make its arrangements without delay. In practice, a request for an interim measure is usually adjudicated in a month.
In a request for interim measures, the plaintiff shall indicate the persistence of any of the conditions giving rise to the interim measure being ordered, present and substantiate with a probable degree of certainty the facts supporting the condition giving rise to the interim measure being ordered, and specify an explicit request regarding the nature of the interim measure sought by him.
In the course of assessing a request for interim measures, the court shall consider, with a view to a possible decision on the provision of security, whether ordering the measure would cause greater disadvantages to the opposing party than not doing so would cause to the requesting party.
The court shall decide on the request for interim measures in an order, which may be challenged by an appeal.
An order on interim measures is preliminarily enforceable. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the period open for performance shall commence on the day after communicating the order in writing.
The order shall remain effective until it is set aside by the court with an order adopted at the request of any party, after hearing the other party as well, or in its judgment or another decision closing the proceedings. If the court does not set aside its decision on interim measures in its judgment or decision closing the proceedings, it shall become ineffective as of when the first instance judgment becomes final and binding.
Interim measures shall cease to have effect when the proceedings are terminated either by a court or ex lege and that shall be established by the court in its order on terminating or establishing the termination of the proceedings. The effect of interim measures shall not be affected by any interruption or suspension of the proceedings.
The court shall require the provision of security as a condition for applying interim measures if the opposing party of the requesting party can substantiate the disadvantages resulting from the requested measure that could serve as a ground for claiming damages or grievance award from the requesting party if he is the successful party. In the course of deciding on the provision of security, the court shall take into account the degree of probability of the facts serving as grounds for the request. No security may be requested in the event of a slight disadvantage.
Finally, Hungarian law also regulates protective measures in the context of enforcement. According to Act LIII of 1994 on enforcement (hereinafter “Enforcement Act”), if an enforcement order cannot yet be issued for the enforcement of a claim (e.g., because the judgment is not yet final, or the deadline for compliance with the judgment has not yet expired), but the creditor has substantiated that any delay in the enforcement of such claim is in jeopardy, the court shall order the protective measures. A protective measure may be the pledge of security for money claims or sequestration of specific things. The purpose of the protective measure is therefore to ensure or facilitate the satisfaction of the claim and the success of subsequent enforcement.
6. Discovery
6.1. What are the rules governing the discovery process in your jurisdiction?
Although there is no discovery in Hungarian civil procedure, the CCP introduced the notion of “evidentiary predicament” (in Hungarian: “bizonyitasi szukseghelyzet”). Evidentiary predicament exists when the party substantiates with a probable degree of certainty that (i) the other party possesses all the relevant information for his motion of evidence and the party took appropriate measures to obtain that information, or (ii) proving the party’s statements is not possible but the other party can be expected to refute the alleged facts or (iii) the successful evidentiary failed due to the reasons attributable to the other party.
The other party may decide to attach the means of proof or, failing this, to give reasons for why the conditions of the evidentiary predicament are not present.
The legal consequence of an evidentiary predicament is that, if the judge has no doubt in this respect, it may recognize factual statement(s) to be proved by the party under such predicament as true.
If the party lacks information not only about the evidence but also about certain secondary facts to be alleged (in relation to the primary fact being the basis of the claim enforced), there is a so-called “factual predicament” (in Hungarian: “allitasi szukseghelyzet”). According to the CCP, a party is in a factual predicament, if it is likely that the information necessary for the assertion of secondary facts is in the exclusive possession of the opposing party, shows that he has taken the necessary steps to obtain and retain the information, the other party fails to provide the information in response to a judicial request; and the opposing party has no reasonable grounds to the contrary.
The CCP sets out that in case of a factual predicament, the court may accept the factual statement concerning the primary facts being the basis of the claim enforced, affected by the predicament as true if it has no doubt as to its accuracy.
6.2. What types of evidence can be requested, and how are discovery disputes resolved?
The CCP does not set out restrictions on what types of evidence can be requested in case of an evidentiary predicament.
As set out in the previous point, a dispute over an evidentiary predicament is resolved in a way that, if the judge has no doubt in this respect, it may recognize factual statement(s) to be proved by the party under such predicament as true.
6.3. How is evidence presented and evaluated during litigation?
The CCP is based on the principle of freedom of proof, i.e., there is no fixed system of proof in civil proceedings, even though there are elements of restrictions. The CCP does mention the means of proof by way of example (witness, expert, document, visual or audio recording, physical evidence, etc.), but this cannot be considered a taxonomic list. In the course of the proceedings, additional means of proof not specifically mentioned in the CCP may be used. 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. However, the CCP does not consider statements by a party or the party’s representative as evidence but may be taken into account when establishing the facts.
An expert can be involved in the case in different ways: on behalf of a party (private expert) or on the basis of a court order. With this rule, the CCP has institutionalized – as a significant innovation – the evidence of private experts. There is no hierarchy between these two ways of employing an expert, the opinion of the private expert and that of the appointed expert being of equal probative value.
A specific case of appointment of an expert is the use of an expert appointed in other proceedings. The party giving evidence may request that an expert’s opinion on the same subject matter, but prepared in another procedure (e.g., criminal, notarial), be admitted to the civil proceedings while retaining its expert character. If it is necessary to supplement the expert opinion received, the court shall appoint the expert who prepared the opinion in the other proceedings.
The party’s choice of expert evidence is subject to the party’s obligation to indicate in its motion for an order for evidence the method of expert evidence chosen. If the party giving evidence requests private expert evidence, the opposing party may also request the attachment of an opinion of a private expert commissioned by him.
There are further specific rules on expert opinions laid down in statutes.
Under the principle of freedom of proof, the court may adduce evidence as it considers appropriate to form its opinion, in such manner as it considers most, and may attribute to the result of the evidence such probative value in the determination of the facts as it considers reasonable in the circumstances, provided that it can reasonably justify its decisions.
It shall be for the parties to provide evidence in support of the facts relevant in the lawsuit unless otherwise provided by law (this exception is understood to mean the possibility of taking evidence ex officio). In this context, the parties shall fulfill this task by submitting a request for evidence (orally or in writing) or by providing the means of proof (e.g., a document). Unless the law provides otherwise, the burden of proof lies with the party in the interest of which it is that the court accepts the alleged fact as true.
Under the principle of “the concentration of procedure,” the CCP introduced a divided procedural structure to expedite civil proceedings: in the first part of the procedure, the framework of the dispute shall be determined by the court (preparatory phase), whilst the evidentiary process shall be commenced and the decision on the merits shall be brought in the second phase.
With the introduction of the divided procedural structure, the time limit for the submission of motions for evidence and the provision of means of evidence has been limited, and the request for evidence or the provision of evidence may only be submitted and amended during the preparatory stage of the proceedings. However, the CCP also allows for a limited number of exceptions to this general rule, which is called subsequent taking of evidence.
Subsequent taking of evidence may be adduced, if the party becomes aware after the closing of the preparatory phase of certain evidence that proves or disproves a fact that was otherwise known at the preparatory phase, or of the relevance of the evidence as a counter-evidence as a result of the evidence already adduced. Subsequent evidence shall also be admissible, if it has become necessary as a result of the material legal information (guidance re substance of the case) provided by the court or if it is intended to prove or disprove a fact relied on as the basis for a change of statement of claim or defense authorized by the court. The motion for evidence or the evidence may be submitted by the party within fifteen days after becoming aware of it or after the other event giving rise to the subsequent taking of evidence.
The court shall establish the relevant facts of the case by comparing and individually and jointly evaluating the statements of fact and behavior of the parties during the proceedings, the evidence discovered during the hearing, and other data related to the action.
In doing so, the court shall establish the credibility (degree of credibility) of the evidence, its strength (probative value), and its relevance for the resolution of the dispute. It assesses the credibility of the testimony, the logical persuasiveness of the expert opinion, the authenticity of the document, the state of the material evidence, etc. The court evaluates the evidence, both individually and as a whole, examines and compares its probative value, takes into account its interdependence and contradictions, and as a result forms its conviction of the facts, which it sets out in the grounds of its decision in the form of findings of fact. The finding, which is the result of a free assessment, is not a subjective opinion but must be objectively established.
The constraint on the discretion of the court is the obligation to state the reasons for its decision. The court must state in the judgment or other decision the circumstances which it considers to be relevant to the weighing of the evidence, in particular the reasons why it has not found a fact proved or why it has disregarded some of the evidence and attributed considerable probative value to others.
Another constraint to the freedom of proof is the CCP’s regulation of unlawful evidence. A means of evidence, or any separable part of it, shall be unlawful and shall not be used in the action if it was obtained or produced by violating or threatening a person’s right to life and physical integrity, it was produced by any other unlawful method, it was obtained in an unlawful manner, or its submission to the court would violate personality rights.
The evidently unlawful nature of a means of evidence shall be taken into account by the court ex officio, and the parties shall be informed accordingly. If a means of evidence is not evidently unlawful, its unlawful nature shall be notified without delay by the opposing party of the party submitting the means of evidence.
The court may, exceptionally assessing the specifics and the extent of the violation of law, the legal interest affected by the violation of law, the impact of the unlawful piece of evidence on discovering the facts of the case, the weight of other available pieces of evidence, and all other circumstances of the case, take into account even the unlawful means of evidence, except for evidence that was obtained or produced by violating or threatening a person’s right to life and physical integrity, which cannot be taken into account.
If an unlawful means of evidence cannot be used and the party presenting evidence cannot prove a fact that is relevant to the case in any other way, the court may apply the rules of evidentiary predicament.
7. Enforcement of Judgments
7.1. What types of judgments can be issued in civil litigation, and how are they enforced?
In general, depending on the type of the statement of claim, the court’s judgment may include an imposition of an obligation on the defendant, a declaration that a right or legal relationship exists or does not exist, or a change in the legal status or relationship of the parties (creation, termination or modification), or of course the rejection of the claim.
Decisions with the effect of a judgment have a different name from a judgment and are made in the form of an order, but they are considered as a judgment in terms of their effect so that when they become final they will have the same legal effects as a final judgment. Decisions with the effect of a judgment are a court injunction and a settlement approved by a final order of the court.
Although a court injunction is not a judgment, it nevertheless adjudicates on the merits of the parties’ dispute, since the court order contains a judicial provision as requested in the claim, but it does not carry out any substantive examination or proof of the substantive right at issue, given that the court injunction is a legal instrument relating to the defendant’s default.
In case of a settlement between the parties, they might request the court to approve their settlement. The same legal effects as the judgment will attach to the settlement of the parties approved by the court since it settles the dispute.
It is important that the CCP lays down the requirement of completeness of the judgment. The principle of completeness must apply in both positive and negative terms. This means that the judgment must cover, but must not go beyond, the content of the statement of claim, the counterclaim, and the application for set-off.
The court may decide on separate claims or parts of a claim that can be adjudicated separately by delivering a partial judgment if further hearings are needed to decide on the remaining claims or the remaining parts of a claim. The court may decide on rejecting a claim or claims forming part of an alternative joinder of claims by delivering a partial judgment if further hearings are needed to decide on any other subsequent claim forming a part of the joinder. In practice, courts rarely adopt partial judgments.
If the dispute pertaining to the existence of a right enforced by an action can be separated from the dispute pertaining to the amount or volume claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of that right, the court may establish the existence of that right by delivering an interlocutory judgment. In such an event, the hearing pertaining to the amount or volume claimed by the plaintiff shall not be continued before the interlocutory judgment becomes final and binding.
After a judgment has become final and binding and the defendant failed to comply with the provisions of the judgment, an enforcement proceeding can be initiated against the defendant by the plaintiff. In Hungary, the enforcement proceeding is a non-contentious proceeding regulated by the Enforcement Act. The aim of enforcement proceedings is to force the debtor to fulfill its payment or other obligations in lack of voluntary performance. The enforcement is ordered by the court upon the request of the entitled person (e.g., a plaintiff who won the lawsuit) and on the basis of a document that may serve as a basis for judicial enforcement (e.g., a judgment). The enforcement proceedings are conducted by bailiffs appointed on a random basis.
In principle, a partial sentence is also enforceable, but in certain cases its final and binding nature is conditional: it can be set aside by a later judgment, but only on the basis of the outcome of the hearings on the set-off or the counterclaim. Thus, the partial judgment may be set aside, maintained in force, or amended accordingly by a subsequent judgment in relation to the outcome of the hearings on the set-off or the counterclaim.
7.2. Are there specific provisions for cross-border litigation or enforcement of foreign judgments?
In relation to the types of judgments that can be issued, there are no specific provisions for lawsuits including cross-border elements. However, there are certain specific rules for proceedings including foreign elements.
First, a plaintiff whose domicile, seat, or habitual place of residence is not in a Member State of the European Union, in a state party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, or in another country regarded as the same according to an international treaty, shall, at the request of the defendant, provide security covering the litigation costs of the defendant, unless provided otherwise by an international agreement entered into by the Hungarian State, the plaintiff was granted cost exemption due to personal circumstances, or the plaintiff has a claim acknowledged by the defendant, immovable property in Hungary or another asset registered in a register of certified authenticity that serves as appropriate security.
Second, there are provisions laid down in the CCP for foreign documents. Foreign public deeds shall have the same effect as Hungarian public deeds, provided that the foreign public deed was authenticated by the competent Hungarian diplomatic representation authority of the place of issue unless another requirement is specified in an international treaty entered into with the country in which it was issued.
Foreign private deeds shall have the same effect as Hungarian private deeds, with the proviso that a deed issued as proof of a legal transaction shall retain the probative value it has according to the law of the country of issue, even if it does not meet the provisions laid down in the CCP for private deeds. Furthermore, a power of attorney, a statement issued for litigation purposes, or another private deed specified in a decree of the minister of justice, as necessary, shall only have the probative value of a private deed as defined in the CCP if it is certified or authenticated by the Hungarian diplomatic representation authority of the place of issue, unless another requirement is specified in an international treaty entered into with the country of issue.
On the other hand, as regards enforcement of foreign judgments, there are specific rules as set out in the following.
In general, judgments of foreign courts (and arbitral tribunals) can be recognized and enforced in Hungary. As set out in the Enforcement Act, the judgment of a foreign court or foreign arbitral tribunal may be enforced based on Hungarian law, international conventions, or reciprocity.
First, according to European Union law, judgments brought by courts seated in the Member States of the European Union shall be ex lege considered as decisions of Hungarian courts and enforced in the same way as Hungarian judgments.
Second, if a reciprocal arrangement is in place between Hungary and the given respective country, the provisions of such an agreement shall apply.
The provisions of Hungarian law, i.e., in this respect, Act XXVIII of 2017 on Private International Law, apply, provided that neither European law, nor an international agreement is applicable.
According to Act XXVIII of 2017 on Private International Law, a judgment adopted by a foreign court shall be recognized if the jurisdiction of the foreign court is considered legitimate under that act, the judgment is construed as final and binding by the law of the state in which it was adopted, and neither of the grounds for denial apply (e.g., the judgment is not contrary to the public order of Hungary).
The recognition of a foreign judgment shall take place upon the request of the party seeking enforcement in Hungary. The Hungarian court competent to consider such request shall verify whether the judgment is in compliance with the respective rules and prerequisites of enforceability. Merits of the case in which the judgment was brought will not be examined.
If the foreign judgment complies with the applicable rules in respect of recognition and enforceability, the court issues an enforcement certificate stating that the judgment shall be enforced the same way as the decisions of Hungarian courts. This decision may be subject to an appeal and even a review procedure if the decision is positive, i.e., granting the enforcement certificate. If the enforcement certificate is granted, this can be followed by a phase of execution of enforcement, in the same way as in the case of Hungarian decisions.
The enforcement order shall be sent to the bailiff of jurisdiction to the debtor’s domicile or registered address, or if there is no such address in Hungary, to the location of the judgment debtor’s enforceable assets. If neither of these two can be found in Hungary, the enforcement cannot be executed and the enforcement proceedings shall be temporarily discontinued until the requesting party is able to inform the court about an appropriate address.
8. Appeal
8.1. What is the appeals process, and what are the grounds for appeal in your jurisdiction?
The general legal remedy available against judgments is called an appeal, which shall be considered by the second-instance courts.
An appeal lies against the first instance judgment and against court orders against which the CCP expressly provides for the possibility to appeal. If the appealing party requests so, the court of second instance may also review the order which the court of first instance has reasoned in its judgment or which may be challenged in an appeal against the judgment (but not separately) together with the judgment of the court of first instance.
The appeal is to be filed within 15 days following the delivery of the written judgment pursuant to the CCP. If the person entitled to appeal files an appeal against only a part or provision of the decision, the part or provision not affected by the appeal shall become final and binding. Any part of the decision that cannot be challenged by an appeal shall also become final and binding.
As a general rule, new evidence and new facts may be presented only if the party submitting the appeal becomes aware of such facts or evidence after the issuance of the first instance decision.
Unless otherwise provided in the CCP, in the proceedings of the second instance, the provisions on proceedings of the first instance shall apply, with the provision that the proceedings of the second instance shall not be split into preparatory and evidentiary stages.
In appeal proceedings, an important question is on what grounds the first instance judgment can be challenged and to what extent the court of appeal can review the first instance judgment. The CCP provides for the extent to which the court of appeal can review the first instance judgment, thereby also indirectly determining the grounds for appeal.
First, the CCP allows the court of second instance to review the lawfulness of the proceedings of the court of first instance. However, this may be done at the request of the party, and ex officio only in exceptional cases, as set out below. In the appeal, the alleged procedural unlawfulness on which the party bases his appeal must be specified.
Second, the court of the second instance may also review the first instance judgment with respect to its compliance with substantive law. When revising on the basis of substantive law, (i) the results of the taking of evidence may be declared to be unreasonable, and, as a consequence, the facts of the case may be modified or supplemented accordingly, (ii) evidence may be taken to establish a fact stated by a party in the first or second instance proceedings, and the facts of the case may be changed or supplemented accordingly, (iii) a legal conclusion, other than the conclusion drawn by the court of first instance, may be drawn from the established facts, and the established facts may be qualified differently, (iv) a decision adopted by the court of first instance within its discretionary power granted by substantive law may be reviewed, even without establishing the violation of any law by the first instance court, (v) a decision may be adopted regarding a matter not heard or decided on by the court of first instance.
The court of the second instance may adopt the following decisions as a result of the appeal proceedings.
If any of the reasons for terminating the proceedings as set out in the CCP occurred during the first or second instance proceedings, the court of the second instance shall adopt an order setting aside the first instance judgment, in whole or with respect to the part affected by the ground for termination, and terminate the proceedings. If such a circumstance exists, it is taken into account ex officio by the court.
The court of second instance shall set aside the first instance judgment with an order and shall instruct the court of first instance to conduct new proceedings and adopt a new decision, if the court of first instance was not duly formed, a judge against whom a ground for disqualification exists by virtue of an act participated in delivering the judgment, or the judgment is affected by an irreparable deficiency as to its form, which makes it unsuitable for revision on the merits. These circumstances are also taken into account ex officio by the court.
The court of second instance may set aside the first instance judgment with an order and instruct the court of first instance to conduct new proceedings and adopt a new decision if the first instance proceedings need to be repeated or supplemented, due to the violation of the substantive rules of the first instance proceedings that affected the decision on the merits of the case, and remedying the situation in the second instance proceedings would be impossible or unreasonable. In practice, courts rarely consider it reasonable to remedy the situation in the second instance, thus, they mostly set aside the decision if such a violation of procedural rules exists.
This latter reason for setting aside the judgment can only be taken into account by the second instance court if the appellant requests so. However, if the court of the second instance discovers a procedural violation of law that was not invoked in the appeal, it shall notify the parties thereof, together with a warning of the consequences, and shall take it into account if so-requested by the appellant.
If the appeal is groundless, the court of the second instance shall uphold the judgment.
If there is no reason for setting aside the judgment, but the first instance judgment is not correct with respect to the merits of the case, it shall be amended in whole or in part by the second instance court.
In summary, an appeal therefore means that the competence of the court of first instance is, as a general rule, transferred in its entirety to the court of second instance, which remedies the infringement of rights within its competence by deciding on the merits of the case and by issuing a decision in accordance with the law.
9. Costs and Funding
9.1. How are legal costs determined, and what are the common practices regarding funding litigation?
The most relevant types of litigation costs are the following.
A duty is payable by the plaintiff at the time of the submission of the statement of claim. The general amount of the duty is defined by the Duties Act, and it depends on the amount in dispute. A duty shall be paid for appeals as well.
As of January 2025, the Duties Act was amended and the rate of the duty for civil proceedings at first instance changed. Prior to the amendment, the duty was set at 6% of the value of the case, with a maximum of HUF 1.5 million. As a result of the amendment, the duty is uniformly HUF 18,000 if the value in dispute is HUF 300,000 or less. If the value in dispute is above HUF 300,000, the rate of the duty is set differently in eight bands depending on the value in dispute. In each band, the duty payable is a fixed amount plus a percentage of the amount exceeding the lower limit of the band. In essence, the amendment increases the duty for litigation, especially by abolishing the upper limit of the duty.
The amount of the duty of appeal proceedings has not changed, it remains 8% of the value of the case in appeal, but is at least HUF 15,000 and no more than HUF 2.5 million.
Costs in connection with the taking of evidence may also emerge, the most significant of which are the costs of expert evidence. These costs are paid in advance by the party who has an interest in the taking of that evidence. The court only appoints the expert if the costs are advanced by the interested party.
Costs of attorneys also usually emerge during a lawsuit, which is advanced by the party represented by that attorney. A party represented by a lawyer may charge as attorney’s fees the fees stipulated in the attorney’s mandate agreement between the party and the lawyer, or the fees set out in Decree 17/2024 (XII. 9.) IM on the attorney’s fees, whose amount depends on the value of the subject of the litigation, and calculated as a percentage of the value of the subject of litigation.
The parties advance their costs upon their occurrence. The court will decide on the bearing of all costs and duties in its judgment.
On the basis of CCP, the losing party pays all the costs of the winning party and if the plaintiff’s claim has only been partially successful, the plaintiff is entitled to costs in proportion to his success. However, the court can order the payment of only a part of the costs, if the winning party caused some of the costs, or the costs are exorbitant, inequitable, or unjustified.
Recently, the Supreme Court has adopted a precedent-establishing decision that the reduction by a court of the lawyer’s fee must be exceptional and applied only in exceptional cases.
The court shall assess whether the lawyer’s fee is disproportional, and can only reduce it if it is manifestly excessive. The reasons given in the judgment for the reduction cannot be general, and without any specific content relating to the case in question, since it would be inappropriate for the purpose of establishing disproportionality and can only be interpreted as a subjective assessment by the court, which would be in breach of the obligation to state reasons.
As a consequence of this decision, it is expected that decisions on reduction of the amount charged by the parties as attorney’s fees will be less, and indeed only in exceptional cases. A plaintiff whose domicile, seat, or habitual place of residence is not in a Member State of the European Union, in a state party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, or in another country regarded as the same according to an international treaty, shall, at the request of the defendant, provide security covering the litigation costs of the defendant, unless provided otherwise by an international agreement entered into by the Hungarian State, the plaintiff was granted cost exemption due to personal circumstances, or the plaintiff has a claim acknowledged by the defendant, immovable property in Hungary or another asset registered in a register of certified authenticity that serves as appropriate security. Hungarian law also opens the door to both complete and partial exemption from costs and expenses, which rules are set out in the Duties Act and in Act CXXVIII of 2017 on Cost Reduction. The exemption is generally dependent on the income and financial situation of the respective party, but in certain proceedings, it is granted based on the subject matter of the proceedings.
Litigation funding is not defined under Hungarian law and it is not widely used in case of lawsuits in Hungary. The changes in the amount of procedural fees may also affect litigation funding, as it may become more common as a result of higher litigation costs.
In the absence of specific regulations, the means of litigation funding are not disclosed to the court and the courts do not issue any cost order (or other decision) that in any way reflects the fact that the proceedings were financed by a third party. The court cannot refer to third parties in the judgment for the purposes of cost allocation. Therefore, under the current laws, litigation funding transactions remain contractual matters outside of the scope of the respective lawsuit.
9.2. Are there alternative funding options available for parties involved in litigation?
Success fees are the most commonly used risk-sharing tool by law firms, but other alternative funding options are not widely used.
In case of a success fee arrangement, the attorney is only remunerated in return for the service in the event of some pre-defined positive outcome. Thus, in case of a success fee, the client and the attorney have a shared interest in achieving a positive outcome.
Success fees are permitted by Hungarian law, however, success fees exceeding two-thirds of the legal fees incurred are not enforceable before the courts, as set out in Act LXXVIII of 2017 on Attorneys.
10. International Treaties
10.1. How do international treaties or regional agreements impact litigation in your jurisdiction?
In Hungary, international treaties and European law play a significant role in shaping litigation and legal proceedings. These agreements often influence various aspects of lawsuits with cross-border elements, including jurisdictional issues, procedural issues such as the taking of evidence and service of documents, and the enforcement of judgments. For instance, legal instruments such as those within the European Union framework can directly affect how Hungarian courts handle cross-border disputes or comply with EU regulations.
Moreover, Hungary’s participation in international conventions can also impact areas of substantive law, like human rights, international trade, and environmental law, introducing standards that domestic courts must consider in their decisions and they have to adopt their judgments in line with the rules of international treaties and EU law.
In cases with an international element, applicable European Union legislation and international treaties take priority over Hungarian legislation, which therefore cannot be applied.
Overall, these treaties and agreements provide a framework that both influences and aligns Hungary’s legal system with international norms and obligations.