Category: Hungary

With preparations for the 2024 CEE Legal Matters Hungary General Counsel Summit in full swing, Peter Virag, the Head of Antitrust, Competition, and Trade at Oppenheim, shares his thoughts about the upcoming event and what he’s looking forward to as both a moderator and participant.

CEELM: Why did you decide to get involved in this event? 

Virag: We have a long-standing and fruitful cooperation with CEE Legal Matters, having participated in their regional Warsaw event earlier this year. CEELM is one of the most reliable sources of information for the legal community in this region, so when we heard about the GC Summit in Budapest, we were immediately interested. 

Moreover, as Oppenheim is celebrating 35 years this year, we’ve wanted to further our commitment to participating in events that bring together the entire legal market. This summit is a great opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with General Counsels, who are often our main point of contact in business, in a more relaxed and informal setting.

CEELM: What influenced your choice of topic for the panel?

Virag: As a competition lawyer, the choice was quite natural for me. We opted for a broad discussion on internal investigations, not as a strict, formal topic but as something that’s relevant to many companies, even those not currently undergoing an investigation. It’s crucial to have a strategy in place ahead of time—whether to defend the case and go to court or to mitigate and settle with the authority. This is especially important from the perspective of GCs, who often have the challenging task of convincing their management that in certain cases admitting the infringement serves their business interests (eg. by securing immunity from fines, etc.) The topic is deeply connected to compliance, strategy alignment, and how these organizations manage these pressures.

CEELM: Can you give us a sneak peek into the panel discussion?

Virag: I don’t want to give away too much because we want people to attend and experience the discussion firsthand. But the subject itself is compelling. The direction the panel takes will largely depend on the panelists, who are seasoned GCs from multinational companies with significant experience in dealing with heavy investigations. They’ve felt the impact of these processes firsthand, and I believe they’ll provide invaluable insights based on their experiences.

CEELM: What are you most excited about at the GC Summit?

Virag: I’m excited not just about moderating my panel but also about attending the other discussions. Our work mainly revolves around specific legal streams like corporate M&A and finance, so I’m keen to hear what’s new in these fields. Most importantly, I look forward to meeting our existing clients outside of a work context and connecting with new potential clients in a relaxed environment.

CEELM: Why should General Counsels make sure to attend this summit?

Virag: This summit is tailored specifically to the needs of GCs, offering them insights that they will want to be familiar with now and in the future. Plus, there’s no need for extensive travel—it’s right here in Budapest. The event is a unique chance to hear directly from peers who have navigated complex legal challenges and to gain valuable perspectives that are highly relevant to the role of a GC today.

The 2024 CEE Legal Matters Hungary General Counsel Summit is sponsored by Jalsovszky, Oppenheim, Schoenherr, Addleshaw Goddard, DLA Piper, and PONTES Budapest and is organized in partnership with the Hungarian Corporate Compliance Society. Find out more about the event here or register to attend here.

With preparations for the 2024 CEE Legal Matters Hungary General Counsel Summit in full swing, Jaslovszky’s’ Tamas Feher talks about the upcoming event and the panel he’ll be moderating.

CEELM: What motivated you to participate in the summit?

Feher: We’ve long admired the work that CEELM does across the region, particularly the events you organize. These gatherings offer an invaluable opportunity to connect with General Counsels, who are a primary focus for us, especially in the context of litigation and dispute resolution.  

Beyond networking, it’s also a chance to engage in discussions that typically don’t occur in day-to-day legal practice. Our usual conversations are often very specific, centered on particular issues or problems, and tend to be quite legalistic. This summit, and especially the panel we are hosting, will allow us to take a broader view of our work and explore new ways of cooperating with counsels.

CEELM: Why did you choose this specific topic for your panel?

Feher: We enjoy venturing off the beaten path! It’s important for us to continually rethink our approach to the legal profession and, specifically, dispute resolution. The topic we chose—examining the practice of seeking second opinions, setting up mock trials and offering an extra pair of eyes in already ongoing cases —addresses an issue that is pervasive yet seldom discussed. It’s almost a taboo subject. Lawyers are often asked to give second opinions on work that has already been done, and yet there’s a certain reluctance to talk about it openly.  

The bottom line is, that our goal is to demystify this practice, to show that (a) it’s okay—everyone does it, (b) there’s a clear rationale behind it, and (c) there’s a lot to be learned and gained from engaging in these activities. We’re taking a leap of faith by discussing it openly and weighing the pros and cons.

CEELM: What excites you most about this upcoming event?

Feher: I’m particularly excited to hear the perspectives of our clients and potential clients on this topic. This isn’t something we’ve previously discussed outside of our firm. We have strong opinions on it, but we’ve never really polled the market or sought out our clients’ thoughts on the matter. I’m eager to hear not only what our fellow panelists will say but also the insights from the audience. Their experiences in this area will be invaluable. 

Ultimately, what excites me the most is the possibility of adding value for everyone involved—sharing experiences and perhaps even developing some best practices that all can benefit from. 

CEELM: Why should a client consider attending this summit?

Feher: From my end, I’ll be telling clients that this is a wonderful opportunity to meet and exchange ideas in an open and friendly environment! I firmly believe that the atmosphere will be conducive to honest discussions and that alone should be a strong incentive to join us. We’re looking forward to engaging with all attendees and having open conversations that could lead to new insights for everyone involved!

The 2024 CEE Legal Matters Hungary General Counsel Summit is sponsored by Jalsovszky, Oppenheim, Schoenherr, Addleshaw Goddard, DLA Piper, and PONTES Budapest and is organized in partnership with the Hungarian Corporate Compliance Society. Find out more about the event here or register to attend here.

In July 2024, the Hungarian Government introduced significant changes to the regulations governing online payments, aiming to enhance consumer protection and the security of electronic transactions.

In accordance with EU Directive 2015/849, payment service providers are required to suspend transactions where the involvement of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) is deemed necessary, and they must immediately report such transactions to the designated authority. Building on this procedure, but distinct from it, a new reporting and freezing procedure has been introduced in Hungary on 1 August 2024. This new procedure is designed to facilitate the recovery of wrongfully appropriated funds. It is based on the efficient and rapid exchange of information between clients, payment service providers and authorities, which was not previously possible under the current legal framework.

The process begins when, following the detection of fraud, the client or the investigative authority notifies the client’s bank in order to suspend the transferred funds. Subsequently, the bank informs the payment service provider of the recipient of the transferred funds, providing details such as the notification, the name and account number of the payer, the name and account number of the payment transaction’s beneficiary, and the currency, amount, and date of the payment transaction. Simultaneously, the payment service providers report the incident to the FIU and, if necessary, suspend the accounts involved.

Starting in the summer of 2025, a fraud detection system will also start operating in Hungary, which will continuously analyse payment patterns and use self-learning methods to filter out fraudulent payment orders.

By Borbala Maglai, Attorney at Law, KCG Partners Law Firm

The European Union lawmakers have completed the group of many sustainability and circularity-focused initiatives introduced during the last legislative cycle. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is a significant step towards promoting sustainable and responsible business practices and more transparent company operations. This Directive completes the Corporate Sustainable Reporting Directive (CSRD) from December 2022, which updates the process of how and what companies report in their non-financial statements, according to European sustainability standards.

Approved by the Council recently and by the European Parliament in April 2024, this directive mandates large companies operating within the EU to integrate the safeguarding of human rights and environmental due diligence into their operations and global value chains. The new rules will ensure that companies in scope address the adverse human rights and environmental impacts of their actions in- and outside Europe.

This Proposal highlights the key aspects of the CSDDD, its most important implications for businesses, and the expected outcomes for various stakeholders, including customers.

Background and Legislative Journey

Environmental and social responsibility is not new. Member states have long been scrutinizing company behaviour, take for example France’s Duty of Vigilance Law or Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act: different rules made it hard for EU-wide suppliers to operate, hence there was a need for a harmonized EU-wide framework. Consequently, in February 2022, the European Commission presented its proposal and after a lengthy discussion between the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement in December 2023. And this has recently been stamped formally by both bodies. The directive will now be published in the EU’s Official Journal and the enter into force 20 days later, giving Member States two years to transpose it into their national law​, after which, on a gradual basis, companies will quickly come under scrutiny.

Scope and Applicability

Though initially the scope covered more companies, the CSDDD now applies to large EU companies with more than 1,000 employees – original proposal targeted companies with more than 500 employees – and a net turnover exceeding EUR 450 million worldwide (instead of the initial EUR 150 million). It also affects non-EU companies with significant operations in the EU, especially those generating more than EUR 450 million in turnover from their EU activities. Although micro-companies, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are not directly covered, they may still be impacted as part of the supply chains of larger companies​.

Core Requirements of the CSDDD

The directive establishes a corporate duty of due diligence that encompasses several key obligations:

• Risk-Based Due Diligence: Companies must develop and implement – and must of course bear the costs of such developments – a due diligence policy that integrates human rights and environmental considerations. This policy should include procedures for identifying, assessing, and addressing actual and potential adverse impacts across the company’s operations, subsidiaries, and value chains. In-scope companies must develop a so-called climate transition plan, too, showing that the company’s business model is compatible with the transition to a sustainable economy and with the limiting of global warming. Businesses must also bear transition costs, including expenditure and investments to adapt a company’s own operations and value chains to comply with the due diligence obligation. 
• Stakeholder Consultation: Meaningful engagement with stakeholders – through a transparent complaints’ procedure –, including employees, affected communities, and civil society organizations, trade unions, workers’ representatives, is required throughout the due diligence process.
• Prevention and Mitigation: Companies are required to take appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate identified adverse impacts. These measures should be proportionate to the severity and likelihood of the impact and may include contractual clauses, training, financial support for SMEs, and, as a last resort, terminating business relationships if necessary​.
• Remediation: If a company causes or contributes to an adverse impact, it must provide remediation to restore affected persons, communities, or the environment to a state as close as possible to the pre-impact situation. Remediation can involve compensation, rehabilitation, and other forms of support​.
• Monitoring and Reporting: Companies must refresh their due diligence assessments annually and publish an annual statement detailing their due diligence processes, findings, and actions taken. This promotes transparency and accountability, allowing stakeholders to make informed decisions​.
• The CSDDD is also important for financial market participants, to be read together with the Sustainable Finance Disclosures Regulation from 2019, in as much as their reporting obligations concern only upstream activities.

Enforcement and Compliance

Once transposed into national laws, enforcement will also be carried out by the designated national authorities. These authorities will have the power to impose sanctions, including fines and other penalties, for non-compliance. Very important for companies that the directive establishes civil liability provisions, ensuring that victims of adverse impacts can seek compensation through legal channels​. The CSDDD states that Member States must ensure that victims get compensation for damages resulting from an intentional or negligent failure to carry out due diligence. Such out-of-contract liability will likely generate a great deal of interest among consumer organizations, and the more concerned and sensitive consumers.

Where possible, class actions will gather interested parties and if we look at cartel-related civil litigation, one can fathom a great deal of private suits starting very soon.

At the EU level, the European Commission will set up a European Network of Supervisory Authorities to ensure a coordinated approach to enforcement across Member States. This network will facilitate the sharing of best practices and support the uniform application of the directive.

Implications for Businesses

Though application is further down the road, compliance may take several years because of the intricate global value chains of companies. The CSDDD represents a paradigm shift in how businesses operate within the EU, with significant implications for corporate governance, risk management, and stakeholder engagement. Key implications include:

• Increased Legal Certainty and Uniformity: The directive provides a harmonized legal framework across the EU, reducing the fragmentation of national due diligence regulations and creating a level playing field for businesses. This uniformity is expected to enhance legal certainty and reduce compliance costs for companies operating in multiple EU countries.
• Enhanced Reputation and Trust: By demonstrating a commitment to human rights and environmental sustainability, companies can build greater trust with customers, investors, and employees. This can lead to increased customer loyalty, better access to finance, and a more motivated workforce​.
• Risk Management and Competitiveness: Implementing robust, well-established, documented and prepared due diligence processes can help companies identify and mitigate risks early, reducing the likelihood of legal disputes and reputational damage. This proactive approach can also enhance business resilience and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving market​,
• Global Influence: The CSDDD sets a high standard for corporate due diligence that could influence international norms and practices. As EU companies implement these requirements, their global business partners may also be encouraged or required to adopt similar standards, promoting sustainability beyond the EU’s borders​.

Practical Implications on Corporate Governance

As an important compliance task, the proper application of Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDD) increases the liability of a company’s top management. Reshaping an existing compliance system to incorporate sustainability factors, ensuring timely commencement of the pre-compliance phase may require the involvement of a dedicated team or more professionally, mandating a third party advisory firm with expertise in sustainability, legal and compliance while having industry knowledge.

Once a dedicated team is engaged, relevant sustainability criteria shall be identified first across the company’s entire value chain: e.g.: by reviewing and assessing internal regulations and contracts throughout their entire value chain.

Based on the general compliance project plans, the team may set up a comprehensive due diligence checklist followed by a thorough risk assessment process, involving the identification and prioritization of environmental, social, and governance risks based on their potential impacts. This all shall based on the data collected through stakeholder interviews and issue-spotting review of documents and policies.

Once the key risk factors are known, focused compliance audits shall be conducted, with reports summarizing findings, key risks, and recommendations for improvement. This recommendation may form the basis of further action plans, including actionable recommendations, clear sustainability goals, key performance indicators (KPIs), and a practical implementation plan outlining steps, resources, and timelines for the company to comply with CSDDD.

For the proper completion of these relatively complex management tasks, a specialized third-party compliance-focused law firm may provide valuable assistance. The timely start of a pre-compliance phase of CSDD, ensures effective management of sustainability risks and opportunities.

By Pal Belenyesi, Of Counsel, Dentons, and Robert Szuchy, Managing Partner, and David Adamov, Associated Lawyer, BSLaw Budapest

In 2024, Hungary introduced new regulations concerning the employment of guest workers. The new law, which took effect at the start of the year, outlines specific criteria for obtaining a guest worker residence permit. Under the new regulations, a guest worker can receive a residence permit if the following conditions are met:

• Employment Purpose: The primary reason for their stay must be to engage in paid employment within Hungary, either directly under an employer or through labour leasing arrangements.
• Registered Employer: The employer must be a registered preferential employer or a registered certified temporary work agency. A “certified temporary work agency” is defined in the law as an employer listed in the government-designated certified temporary work agency register.
• Third-Country National: The worker must be a citizen of a third country, as specified by a government decree.
• Eligible Occupation: The worker’s employment must be in a field that has not been excluded by the Minister responsible for employment policy in their official announcements.

Additionally, the law places an annually determined cap on the total number of guest worker residence permits and employment-based residence permits issued in Hungary each year. The guest worker residence permit allows a worker to stay in Hungary for a fixed period of up to two years. The Hungarian government now has also determined the list of third countries whose citizens are eligible for the guest worker residence permit under this law. The countries include Philippines, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Federative Republic of Brazil, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Republic of Colombia.

These changes aim to regulate the employment of non-EU nationals in Hungary more effectively, ensuring that the process aligns with the country’s labour market needs and legal framework. The inclusion of specific countries is likely intended to target labour from regions where Hungary has strategic or economic interests.

By Reka Fulop, Attorney at Law, KCG Partners

With preparations for the 2024 CEE Legal Matters Hungary General Counsel Summit in full swing, Pontes’ Csaba Polgar talks about the upcoming event and what he’s looking forward to the most.

CEELM: Why did you choose to participate in the event?

Polgar: First of all, thank you for the opportunity to do so! It’s great to return to in-person events after the pandemic. 

Events like these are always a fantastic way to strengthen our visibility, especially after the CEELM GC Summit in Warsaw this past April. It always feels like the right thing to do and with CEELM putting in the effort to organize these events — I believe we will all have a great opportunity to reconnect with people and have fruitful discussions. 

CEELM: What topics are you particularly interested in exploring at the event? 

Polgar: There are quite a few that catch my interest. Given the type of law firm we are—a boutique, transactions-oriented firm with about 12-13 people in Budapest—I’m keen to hear from larger organizations with more substantial in-house teams. I want to understand the niche legal needs that we might be able to assist with. We’re not here to create standard contract templates; our strength lies in crafting sophisticated, tailor-made solutions for complex legal problems. I’m particularly interested in learning what’s at the top of the agenda for large corporates.

Another area of curiosity for me is how cautiously General Counsels are viewing the current state of Hungarian legislation. How confident do they feel within the existing legal framework? What’s the general sense of the rule of law in Hungary? It’s a sensitive topic, but in a more relaxed setting—perhaps not on stage—we might gain insights into the challenges they’ve faced over the past few years and the direction in which good governance should be taking the country.

CEELM: What are the key questions you plan to ask during the event?

Polgar: First, I’m keen to know how GCs foresee the long-term plans of their employers. It’s a fast-changing world, and in certain industries, we see significant movements—some players entering, others leaving the market. While I wouldn’t ask a question like this from local Hungarian champions, for certain organizations, it’s crucial to understand how they view their long-term presence in Hungary. 

Second, and perhaps a bit selfishly, I want to understand how we can become part of their legal panels if we’re not already on them. What do they look for when refreshing their panels? What are the key factors they consider? We need to evaluate whether we meet those requirements and if there’s an opportunity for us.

Lastly, I’m interested in a broader CEE perspective. I want to see if they have initiatives not just in Hungary but across the CEE region. This could potentially allow us to export contacts to our other offices in the region, expanding our referral-based work.

CEELM: Why should attendees make sure not to miss this event?

Polgar: This is a unique event where they can share their concerns, challenges, and experiences with peers. Peer-to-peer conversations in a condensed setting like this provide an invaluable opportunity. In just one day, they can meet others facing the same challenges and tasks, exchange notes with bright minds, and, of course, have a great time.

The 2024 CEE Legal Matters Hungary General Counsel Summit is sponsored by Jalsovszky, Oppenheim, Schoenherr, Addleshaw Goddard, DLA Piper, and PONTES Budapest and is organized in partnership with the Hungarian Corporate Compliance Society. Find out more about the event here or register to attend here.

A&O Shearman has advised EcoPro Global Hungary on USD 860 million financing for an EV battery cathode active material manufacturing factory in Debrecen, Hungary.

EcoPro Global Hungary is a wholly-owned subsidiary of EcoPro BM, a cathode producer. According to A&O Shearman, “this transaction represents the first green loan financing undertaken by EcoPro BM.”

The A&O Shearman team in Budapest included Partner Miklos Kadar, Counsel Karoly Foti, Senior Associate Daniel Racz, and Associates Zsofia Varkonyi and Dorka Szilagyi as well as further team members in Seoul.

A&O Shearman did not respond to our inquiry about the matter.

Editor’s Note: After this article was published, CMS announced that it advised HSBC and BNP Paribas on the financing side. The firm’s team included Partner Eszter Torok and Junior Associate Marton Lazar.

With preparations for the 2024 CEE Legal Matters Hungary General Counsel Summit in full swing, Schoenherr’s Miklos Klenanc talks about the upcoming event and the panel he’ll be moderating.

CEELM: Why did Schoenherr decide to participate in this year’s edition of the CEE Legal Matters Hungary GC Summit?

Klenanc: Schoenherr has always been eager to be at the forefront of legal technology. But beyond that, it’s important to understand the “why.” When I first became involved in legal tech over 15 years ago, I remember sitting in front of a desktop computer, trying out one of the early online translation tools. It was laughable then, but today, we use various translation tools daily. The evolution in legal tech is happening at a similar pace, but the change is much faster now. We won’t have to wait 15 years to see widespread adoption; it’s already becoming part of our daily routine.

On a personal note, I often admire circus artists for their ability to perform extraordinary feats, knowing there’s a safety net beneath them. As attorneys, we need to be that safety net for General Counsels. They should feel confident that we are there to back them up, but that trust isn’t built overnight. It’s something they need to test, feel, and experience for themselves. Interacting with GCs, staying engaged, and understanding their industry-specific challenges is crucial. This is why we choose to participate in forums like the HU GC Summit. It allows us to connect with our clients and potential clients, not just present solutions we think are best, but to understand and address what truly affects them.

CEELM: Why did you choose to focus on legal tech in your discussions at the summit?

Klenanc: The choice was straightforward. In almost every conversation I’ve had with GCs over the past few months, AI has come up. They’re curious about AI-related developments and want to know if we have firsthand experience with these tools. At Schoenherr, we’re using Harvey on a daily basis, and we’re constantly testing new solutions. The first wave of AI tools were broad, catch-all solutions, but now we’re seeing more specialized tools that are tailored to specific needs. It’s important to not only explore these tools from a technical standpoint but also to consider how they will reshape the relationship between lawyers and GCs in the future.

This change is inevitable. With the help of these new technologies, attorneys can offer better, more value-added solutions. It’s not about offloading all our work to software; it’s about using technology to provide seamless legal services that go beyond the basics. It’s about building deeper relationships with clients, truly understanding their needs, and helping them articulate those needs.

CEELM: What are you most excited about for the HU GC Summit?

Klenanc: I’m really looking forward to meeting both familiar faces and new colleagues. The chance to have meaningful conversations about the future of our profession is what excites me most. Being a lawyer is extraordinary, especially now, as our profession undergoes significant changes. Being part of this transformation is a gift, and I’m eager to engage in discussions that will shape the future of legal practice.

CEELM: Can you give us a sneak peek of what to expect from your panel?

Klenanc: The panel won’t be a traditional, scripted discussion. Instead, it’ll be a candid conversation where the panelists share their real-life “war stories” with these new technologies. We’re not looking to instill fear but to address concerns—because it’s natural to be concerned when facing something new. By sharing our experiences and understanding the root of these concerns, we can connect with these tools differently, and often, those concerns quickly diminish.

The 2024 CEE Legal Matters Hungary General Counsel Summit is sponsored by Jalsovszky, Oppenheim, Schoenherr, Addleshaw Goddard, DLA Piper, and PONTES Budapest and is organized in partnership with the Hungarian Corporate Compliance Society. Find out more about the event here or register to attend here.

Former Lakatos, Koves and Partners Head of Tax Balazs Kantor has joined Kapolyi as a Partner and the firm’s new Head of Tax.

Before the move, Kantor spent nine years with LKT. Earlier, he spent over six years with DLA Piper, between 2009 and 2015, and three and a half years with Allen & Overy.

As of 1 August 2024, the maximum amount of the fine that can be imposed by the Hungarian Competition Authority (“HCA”) will increase from 13% to 15% during the state of war emergency.

The Hungarian Government, by the decree no. 184/2024. (VII. 8.) published on 8 July 2024 (“Decree”), ordered the application of derogative rules regarding the fine cap that may be imposed on undertakings that violate the provisions of the Competition Act. Under the Decree, for competition law infringements committed after 1 August 2024, the HCA may impose a fine of up to 15% of the annual group turnover of the infringing undertakings instead of the 13% provided for in the Competition Act during the period of the state of war emergency.

As a model based on EU competition policy, the maximum fine that the HCA could impose for competition law infringements amounted to 10% of the net turnover of the undertaking or group of undertakings concerned over a long period of time. The first departure was made in September last year when the Competition Act was amended, and the fine cap raised from 10% to 13%. Although the Decree did not amend the Competition Act and the 15% fine cap will apply during the period of the special legal regime of war emergency (which currently means until 20 November 2024, but probably until the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war), overall the maximum fine that the GVH can impose has increased by one and a half times in the past year.

Although the change seems to be a matter of arithmetic at first glance, it raises some important questions of law enforcement. The first of these questions is whether the 15% fine cap will apply to continuous infringements where the infringing conduct of the undertakings concerned took place before the effective date of the Decree but continued after the Decree entered into force. Furthermore, it may be questioned whether the 15% fine cap will apply in cases where the infringing conduct giving rise to the imposition of the fine took place after the effective date of the Decree, but the fine is imposed only after the potential end of the war emergency situation or the GVH will revert to the 13% fine cap provided for in the Competition Act in such cases instead.

Although the application of a fine cap higher than 10% may seem rather unorthodox in the European Union, it is not incompatible with EU law, given that the 10% limit is a minimum expectation for Member States under the ECN+ Directive as regards the maximum fine, not an absolute cap which should prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing a higher maximum fine. However, the increased fine cap in the Decree may lead to an interesting situation with regard to jurisdictional issues between the HCA and the European Commission in the case of parallel proceedings, as the maximum fine will be higher if the HCA imposes it than the European Commission.

It is important to note, that the maximum amount of the fine is in fact only an upper limit and do not serves as a basis for the calculation of the fine. Therefore, it could be questioned whether the increase of the fine cap will have indeed an upward effect on the amounts of fines to be imposed in the future.

By Peter Virag, Senior Counsel, Oppenheim Law Firm