Category: Hungary

In a recent case (under No. BDT2023.4623), the Budapest Court of Appeal made an important decision on the issue of jurisdiction. The case related to challenging the fairness (and the validity) of general terms of business (GTCs) of foreign service providers engaging in business with consumers in Hungary.

The decision is significant for all such providers as the Budapest Court of Appeal unequivocally established that Hungarian courts do have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate on such challenges.

The case concerned a claim by the public prosecutor, which has the right, under Hungarian law, to challenge unfair GTCs applicable to consumers and to ask the Hungarian courts to establish whether clauses or provisions are invalid.

The prosecutor initiating cases like this has proved to be successful against Hungarian operators in several industries, most recently banking, insurance, real estate and aviation. But past cases all concerned businesses (ie companies) established in Hungary as defendants, where the issue of jurisdiction didn’t come up.

To our knowledge, this case is the first where the prosecutor has decided to challenge GTC provisions applied by an operator established in another EU country, meaning a foreign defendant appeared in the case.

The issue of jurisdiction quickly became a key point of contention. Under the applicable EU law rules (Regulation 1215/2012/EU, the Brussels 1a Regulation), a defendant should be sued in the country where it is established. But the Brussels 1a Regulation also recognizes that in matters relating to torts, a defendant can also be sued in the courts where the harmful event occurred or may occur.

The defendant argued that the prosecutor’s challenge to establish the unfairness of a GTC provision cannot be a “matter relating to a tort” since such challenges are merely aimed at establishing the invalidity of the contractual clause in the GTC, but have nothing to do with torts or damages, which are a separate matter.

The Budapest Court of Appeal disagreed. It relied on the European Court’s judgment in the C-191/15 Verein für Konsumenteninformation case, in which an Austrian consumer protection association sued a Luxembourg company. In that case, the European Court established Austrian jurisdiction. The court held that in matters of consumer protection, a preventive action (eg to prohibit the use of an unfair contractual clause) can be a “matter relating to a tort” under the Brussels 1a Regulation (when read together with the applicable EU rules).

The European Court found that under these rules, a company that directs its activities to the Member State where a consumer is domiciled can be sued in that Member State. The Budapest Court of Appeal also confirmed the existence of Hungarian jurisdiction for these types of claims against EU-based foreign defendants.

This might not be the Hungarian courts’ final word on the matter. The case was remitted to the first instance on substance, where it could be further escalated to the Hungarian Supreme Court. But we can expect the Hungarian public prosecutor’s office to challenge further GTCs employed by companies established in the EU with a significant Hungarian consumer base. The prime targets are likely to be online service providers (including webshops, online platforms and social media companies).

Companies should review their GTCs directed to Hungarian consumers to avoid allegations of unfairness. In addition, they should also take steps to prepare for a possible approach by the prosecutor. By taking preparatory steps, companies can avoid costly and protracted litigation and they can streamline any possible litigation to involve only the points where a successful defense can be reasonably expected on the merits.

[Disclosure: DLA Piper Hungary represented the defendant in the case]

By Viktor Radics and Zoltán Marosi, Partners, DLA Piper Hungary

 

At the beginning of May 2023, a new bill to amend certain laws to increase the competitiveness of the economy was submitted for public consultation. The bill proposes amendments to many laws, but the most important of these is the regulation of construction right in the Civil Code.

Under the new legislation, the holder of a construction right may construct or use a building on or under the surface of a real property. This means that he has the right to construct a building and use the real property for this purpose, as well as the right to possess, use and benefit from the building constructed. The construction right is a marketable right, may be transferable, may be subject to succession, and may be held simultaneously and jointly by several holders, subject to the rules on common ownership.

Construction right is mainly comparable to a usufruct right, but it gives the rightholder a stronger basis in that it grants him, in addition to the right of free use and enjoyment, the right of free disposal of all the works and their components which are created under the right. The fact that construction right is a transferable and encumberable right also provides an additional possibility and advantage compared to the usufruct right.

The construction right can be established by a written contract for a limited period of time, and in addition to the contract, it also requires the registration of the right in the land register in favour of the holder. The establishment of a construction right may be free of charge or for consideration, as freely agreed by the parties. In the latter case, the holder of the construction right is obliged to pay a one-off and/or periodic recurring fee, the amount and due date of which must be specified by the parties in the contract establishing the right.

The bill provides for the possibility for the owner of the real property to establish the construction right for its own benefit as the beneficiary and to pledge it independently, however, a so-called “consumer” may not establish or hold construction right on the real property which he owns – except by inheritance.

The construction right will cease to exist if the rightholder has not exercised it for fifteen years or, if it has been established for more than fifty years and fifty years have elapsed from the date of its establishment. It is also important to emphasise that the transfer or encumbrance of the real property subject to the construction and vice versa are independent from each other.

A building established under a construction right remains part of the real property concerned even if the owner of the property and the holder of the construction right are different persons unless otherwise agreed by the parties, which is possible under the bill, according to the rules on the separate ownership of the building and the land. Therefore, the construction of a superstructure does not automatically create an independent right of ownership.

The reintroduction of the construction right could also have an economic stimulating effect. Currently, the financing of investments in buildings and technical equipment have a barrier to economic growth and competitiveness. The difficulty is caused by the fact that the building or structure to be constructed in the future cannot be mortgaged or accepted as collateral for a loan and cannot therefore, serve as adequate collateral for the financing needed to carry out the project.

Solar power plant investments are a typical example in this context, since the value of the investment is not only the asset to be installed and built, but also the power plant licence and the long-term takeover guarantee associated with the land. As in the case of renewable energy investments, the right of construction could significantly facilitate the financing of construction projects.

The introduction of this legal instrument is also justified by the fact that, at the same time, a complete overhaul of real estate registration law is underway, which will provide an appropriate basis and opportunity for the reintegration of construction law into the Hungarian legal system.

By Gabriella Galik, Partner, KCG Partners Law Firm

Schoenherr has advised Nufarm Hungary on the lease for its new office headquarters in the Budapest One Office building from Futureal Prime Properties.

According to the firm, Futureal Prime Properties is a “long-standing player in the Hungarian office market with outstanding office and residential buildings.”

Nufarm Hungary is a crop protection and seed technology company that has been, according to Schoenherr, “helping growers fight disease, weeds, and pests for more than 100 years.”

The Schoenherr team was led by Partner Laszlo Krupl and included Associate Viktoria Magyar.

In the Hungarian HoReCa sector, the question of how much competition there is in the market for beverage procurement has been on the agenda of the Hungarian competition authority and the political discourse for some time.

At the same time, the undoubtedly prevailing situation in the beer market has served as a trigger for legislative trends. In the summer of 2020, the public discourse intensified on the difficulty or impossibility for alternative, small breweries to enter the market, because multinational beer producers – using various direct or indirect anti-competitive instruments – have established contractual arrangements with participants in the HoReCa sector that make this task disproportionately difficult. In order to remedy this situation, the legislator has introduced an amendment to the law with the following objectives:

“The purpose of the proposal is to create the possibility to reduce the exclusive distribution contracts that are common practice in the on-trade (HoReCa) market. In the on-trade market, the large producers tie up the majority of the volume of sales by concluding exclusive agreements with smaller producers. The proposal reduces this restrictive effect on competition to the benefit of smaller market participants (e.g. small breweries).”

The proposal was finally adopted, and the legislator intends to resolve the legal concerns with the following legislative provision:

“Section 7/B of the Hungarian Trade Act

(2) A catering establishment selling beverages shall ensure the sale of beer, except beer sold on tap, soft drinks, fruit drinks, fruit juices and fruit nectars, mineral water and sparkling water (soda water) from at least two different manufacturers per product.”

This provision, which prohibits exclusivity clause, in principle gives small brewers the opportunity to enter market segments previously closed to competition. The Hungarian Competition Authority – at that time still in parallel with the legislative trend and the objectives set out therein – has set 2020 as the target date for the implementation of the new legislation. In October 2020, the Hungarian Competition Authority imposed a significant fine on Heineken’s Hungarian subsidiary when it found that Heineken had not adequately justified its commitments to reduce the volume of beer sold under exclusive contracts, and fined the company HUF 75 million, In 2015, the GVH accepted a commitment (a quasi-competition plea deal) from the three largest Hungarian brewers, Dreher, Borsodi and Heineken, to gradually reduce the volume of beer sold to restaurants under exclusive contracts.

The fining was announced in a press release by the competition authority, which published the circumstances of the legal proceedings, and then, on the day after the press release of the fine imposed on Heineken, the competition authority announced (also publicly) that it was conducting an industry inquiry (which it said was to investigate, to what extent and how competition in the sector was distorted) to analyse the purchases of beverages by restaurants, pubs and other catering outlets in Hungary [the HoReCa sector].

Based on the above, the strong intervention of the Competition Authority shows that the economic interest of small brewers and the protection of consumer welfare by the Competition Authority coincided, i.e. that the entry of small brewers into the market increases consumer welfare.

The purpose of the Competition Authority’s action and the amending legislation therefore coincide. After an eventful and intense competition authority intervention in 2020 – contrary to expectations – the competition authority remained silent for almost three years. The draft report on the outcome of the sector inquiry launched in 2020, was published by the Competition

Authority in February 2023.

The published draft may also raise concerns because it is not in accordance with the Competition Authority’s earlier intentions in 2020, which have quasi-underpinned the legislative trends:

“The Competition Authority recommends that the legislator suspend the application of the provisions of Article 7/B(2) of the Trade Act until the end of the state of danger, as in its current form it imposes an excessive burden on already distressed, typically Hungarian-owned, catering establishments, while its expectations are not in line with consumer needs, based on the results of the market research carried out in the sector inquiry.”

It is not surprising that some major small breweries have issued a joint and open letter in opposition to the Competition Authority’s position, arguing at length about the position the draft report would put small brewers in.If we look at the issue from the perspective that the Authority, at the time of publication of the draft report, requested the suspension of the provision until the end of the state of danger, it raises further concerns for the Authority’s position, as the state of danger in Hungary under the rules in force at the time of publication lasted until June 2023. In simple terms, the Authority asked the legislator in a draft non-final report to suspend a legislative provision for a couple of months. In this respect, the proposal in the draft report is therefore not only unreasonable, but also undermines the predictability of the legislation.

Although the situation has changed since then, the state of danger has been extended until 25 November 2023. While this fact reduces the seriousness of the concerns against the draft report, as the legislator has the possibility to suspend the provision for a longer period, the legislator has not yet acted on this possibility. It is therefore interesting to see whether the legislation in question will be suspended, given that small breweries argue that it would deprive them of an important stepping stone to the market.

The draft report’s approach is therefore basically a welcome one for the HoReCa sector, but it is interesting that the competition authority is taking an otherwise restrictive approach to competition in another sector in order to maintain competition in that market. If we take into account the complexity of market processes, and assume that the competition authority’s 180-degree turn is correct in terms of the bigger picture, we are particularly excited to see how the legislator will react in such a situation.

By Martin Kocso, Associate, Nagy & Trocsanyi

HP Legal Hajdu & Partners was established in Budapest in 2008, in what feels like a different age. Celebrating 15 years in business, Partners Laszlo Hajdu, Reka Versics, and Steven Conybeare reflect on the firm’s early days, share some lessons learned, and toast to 15 more.

CEELM: Tell us how it all started – what were the early days of your firm like?

Hajdu: We all came from international law firms with international backgrounds. However, we always had the strong desire to start something of our own, a venture that we could build for ourselves. Establishing our own firm meant entrepreneurial freedom, allowing us to decide on our client base, our strategy, and which transactions to work on. We aimed to play in the same league as the international firms but with greater flexibility and tailored advice to meet specific needs.

We knew the first few years would be difficult, starting in a small office. Being on our own also meant that we lacked the support of larger firms from cities like London or New York. Nevertheless, we were committed to maintaining the essence of our business and never giving up.

Conybeare: When considering the beginnings of the market, there was a very specific context in Hungary. When I first visited Budapest in 2004, large London and New York firms were dominant. As the deals became smaller and less lucrative, these firms gradually withdrew, leaving behind remnants of their businesses. Consequently, there were many highly educated and trained individuals locally.

We saw that there would be an increasing demand for lawyers who understood the business of law and the positive benefits of maintaining relationships with international firms – foreign investors were coming in and local investors were also aware that they had to comply with globally recognized standards for running businesses. As a result, there was a real opportunity for local lawyers to step up and satisfy the growing demand for more sophisticated clients.

Versics: Such changes opened new opportunities for boutique law firms like ours. While international law firms may follow different strategies, we were always interested in helping clients in a more holistic manner, providing legal support while understanding the local mindset, which continues to involve thinking outside the box and solving problems creatively with a similar level of professionalism.

CEELM: How has your firm evolved over the years and what were the main difficulties you had to face?

Conybeare: The key challenges experienced in the initial period were twofold: one was external, related to attracting clients, and the other one was related to the internal management of a new law firm.

Attracting clients is crucial for any law firm – being excellent lawyers alone is never sufficient to succeed as, without clients, we were merely good law professors at best. In our case, we relied on our relationships with people primarily through our old firms, but that was not enough. Personal branding has been crucial for us throughout the period when a successful international law firm was no longer backing us. We realized that every conversation we had with clients, colleagues, or counterparties was an opportunity to create a meaningful connection. It was not just about the firm or the brand, but about the individual lawyer, as clients are more likely to build long-term relationships with someone they remember and trust.

Hajdu: Internally, it was important to find like-minded individuals who shared a similar mindset. However, it was challenging to find people who were ready and willing to work in this way. Therefore, we focused on finding legal professionals who thought like entrepreneurs and shared our vision of creating something new and different.

Versics: Even before joining the firm, I was guided by a key factor in my career: I have heard many times from businesspeople that lawyers lacked a comprehensive understanding of what business truly entails. Their general comment was that lawyers simply wrote legal jargon without grasping the specific needs or goals of the clients. I wanted to be a lawyer who not only knew the law but also understood what my clients aimed to achieve and with knowledge of how to help them do so effectively. This thinking is what I found in this firm and what we are building together.

CEELM: Looking back, what are the significant lessons learned from these challenges?

Conybeare: Recently, it dawned on me that lawyers essentially lease out their minds to clients, whether they enjoy it or not. As a lawyer, one must possess two key factors: an excellent ability to listen and comprehend what the client wants, and the legal knowledge to ensure their objectives are successfully met. Although not every client will be a good match and vice versa, it’s about selling intangible services. This is where one must distinguish oneself from the competition. While investing millions in marketing is an option, one’s appearance, communication style, and behavior are what ultimately matter when interacting with clients.

Additionally, part of the excitement in our line of work is working with international law firms as counterparties in negotiations. They tend to enlist junior lawyers who specialize in various areas such as tax, labor, property, and banking. However, to successfully close deals, it is always beneficial to have someone who has a comprehensive understanding of the entire transaction. While expertise is undoubtedly essential, it is this overview, with an overarching comprehension, that ultimately drives the deal.

Versics: In my experience, the most important tools of a good lawyer are effective communication and listening skills. There are plenty of smart lawyers in this industry; why clients come to us is our ability to understand their needs, identify their problems, and propose a practical solution that will bring their businesses forward.

CEELM: On the flip side, what was your first major win, either in terms of projects or the team?

Hajdu: It wasn’t until after seven or eight years that we finally achieved satisfaction with our client base, reputation in the market, and competitors’ acknowledgment of us as a top-tier finance and corporate firm. Our success came from accumulating numerous small victories, including securing our first major mandates and learning to work effectively as a team. Despite the most recent challenges presented by external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, sanctions, and political changes, our ability to adapt and overcome these obstacles has solidified our confidence in our abilities. And our clients’ trust in us.

Versics: From my perspective, a mandate or a big project isn’t necessarily required for success in the job. The ultimate victory is when the client recognizes our capabilities, and we develop a productive working relationship. This is the triumph that I would value above all else.

CEELM: Finally, tell us a bit about HP Legal’s strategy for the next 15 years.

Conybeare: For me, success lies in identifying the areas where we need to excel, anticipating changes on the horizon, and recognizing where lawyers can be productive and useful. Compared to ChatGPT, which provides answers but lacks the ability to ask questions, we focus on assimilating and assembling all the facts our clients have, listening to their needs, and distilling those into higher value-added services. IT professionals are automating every process they can, and where we can add value is not simply by generating automated answers, but by understanding and generating the right questions to ensure we have the full picture. We have been ahead of the curve on this for some time, and it gives us a competitive edge.

Hajdu: AI will take over some tasks, including in the legal profession, and businesses will change accordingly. However, there will always be a need for lawyers who can think like both lawyers and businessmen, offering sophisticated, complex, and structured advice in a manner that clients can understand.

And, for example, while clients may not need lawyers to set up a company in the future, they will need them to offer strategic advice, take advantage of new models and structures, and put together a team of legal, IT, and financial experts to provide complex advice. This is what we need to understand and apply in the future, moving beyond contract writing and the basics of data protection and compliance to a more sophisticated, business-oriented way of thinking. As far as we can see, this approach is being applied by big US and London law firms, and we are basing our strategy on this same approach to ensure our future success.

Versics: What we do best here at HP Legal is adapt to new challenges, may those be digitalization, economic changes, or the expansion of new industries. Our goal is to continue this approach and look for like-minded young lawyers who share our way of thinking.

Cerha Hempel has advised CA Immo on the sale of the Vizivaros Business Center in Budapest to the FLE SICAV FIS real estate fund managed by FLE. CMS advised the buyer.

According to Cerha Hempel, “located in the ‘Central Buda’ office district in the west of Budapest, the Vizivaros Office Center has a total lettable area of around 14,200 square meters and was 96% let as of December 31, 2022.

Founded in 1987, CA Immo is listed on the ATX index of the Vienna Stock Exchange and controls property assets of approximately EUR 5.9 billion in Germany, Austria, and CEE.

Cerha Hempel’s team included Managing Partner Wilhelm Stettner and Partner Mark Krenn.

The CMS team included Partner Jozsef Varady, Senior Counsel Andras Klupacs, and Associate Mark Molnar.

Schoenherr Local Partner Daniel Gera has become the firm’s new Hungarian office Managing Partner, taking over from Local Partner Kinga Hetenyi.

Gera, also Head of the local Labour & Employment and Compliance practices, has been with Schoenherr since 2015. He became a Counsel in 2020 and a Local Partner in 2022 (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on February 24, 2022). Before joining Schoenherr, Gera spent over six years at Gide Loyrette Nouel as an Attorney at Law, between 2008 and 2014. Earlier, Gera was an Associate with PwC Hungary, from 2004 to 2008. 

“After 13 years as the managing partner in Budapest, I am happy to pass the baton to Daniel Gera, who is an excellent lawyer and has a very successful track record in advising clients in a variety of legal fields, including labor and employment, corporate M&A, and compliance matters,” Hetenyi said. “He is a highly regarded and innovative partner with exceptional people management skills. I see this change as a natural evolution of our team, creating opportunity for growth also for promising younger lawyers in our office.”

“Daniel Gera has been contributing to the success and the progress of the firm for many years now,” Schoenherr Managing Partner Alexander Popp added. “He has been instrumental in leading Schoenherr Hungary’s Labor & Employment group to meet the evolving needs of our business and clients. Beyond that, he has excellent leadership skills and is invested in every team member’s personal and professional growth along the way. I am happy to welcome him in this new role and wish him continued success.”

The start of the year might have been a bit slow in Hungary as well, but things have shifted towards a more positive outlook for the legal industry in the country, according to Lakatos, Koves and Partners Managing Partner Peter Lakatos.

“In general, there was a kind of a slowdown at the beginning of the year, with activity levels being a bit lower when compared to recent years, but things have since started to pick up across all sectors,” Lakatos begins. “The intensity of the activities is going up and this trend is likely to continue for the immediate future.” According to him, the general areas that generate work for lawyers are cross-border M&A, real estate, finance, regulatory matters, and dispute resolution. “Following a tumultuous 2022 on account of the shock following the start of the war in Ukraine, real estate, for example, has picked up and is slowly but surely returning to its former strength,” Lakatos says.

Additionally, healthy levels of cross-border M&A activity and associated movement mark Hungarian markets. “There are quite a few projects of note in the pipeline across many sectors, in particular concerning renewables (solar and geothermal) and with developments anticipated concerning wind power,” Lakatos says. Among the spearheads of activity “we see the automotive industry, in the widest sense, including EV/battery or logistics related investments, creating a lot of work,” Lakatos continues. “In the automotive sector, and more widely, Hungary continues to benefit from supply chain restructuring, remaining an attractive location for both manufacturing, R&D, and SSCs. While there are no specific drivers per se, we see continued exits taking place in multiple sectors with new investors seeking to fill out the gaps,” he explains. 

Focusing on M&A, Lakatos reports there are important legislative movements for cross-border transactions. “The new FDI control mechanism and associated regulatory framework are in a constant state of flux and change, and both M&A and financing transactions have been feeling this legislative evolution quite a bit,” he reports. “With the framework evolving frequently, and changes being introduced often, businesses are becoming more cautious when navigating their course.” Other continuing trends in transactional activity are succession sales and intra-regional transactions, “with a notable pick-up in activity involving the Baltics – investment in IT and software companies – and the continuing expansion of companies closely aligned with the governing party, e.g., the acquisition by 4iG of Vodafone Hungary,” Lakatos reports.

Finally, assessing the current status of the Hungarian economy, Lakatos reports several trends of note. “I keep hearing from clients and financial experts that, while inflation is still a large issue and therefore interest rates have been on a constant rise, there is also a lot of hot money in the market being placed into high interest-earning government bond-type lucrative investments,” he explains. “Therefore, the forint is still quite stable at the moment, but there is reason to believe that this may quickly change once the prime interest rate of the National Bank of Hungary is lowered.”

Lakatos stresses that, while this current status quo might be affecting the export sector in an adverse fashion, it has not had the same impact on other areas: “for example, the actual cost in forints of energy imports. Making predictions as to how the year will pan out from a national economic perspective is an arduous task, but I suspect that there will be room for glad tidings as the year progresses,” he concludes. “If peace and stability could be restored in Ukraine, that would, while drawing investment away from the rest of the region, offer significant opportunities for involvement in reconstruction.”

Until recently, news reports regarding cookies have only discussed the gigantic fines imposed by foreign data protection authorities (DPAs) on tech giants (Google, Amazon, Meta). For economic reasons, operators of simple websites are continuing to use their illegal practices without risk until the last possible moment.

This moment has arrived for Hungarian data controllers, as the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (NAIH) has recently published its first, and so far only, official decision on cookie management. Although NAIH imposed a relatively small fine of only HUF 10,000,000 (approximately €25,000), the reasons given for the decision state that the low fine is justified by the fact that this is the first time the Hungarian authority has opened an investigation into cookie management.

It is no use putting forward the defence that “everyone does it”. NAIH has stressed that the widespread nature of the infringement does not make it legal. In this context, NAIH also pointed out that operating under the IAB Europe framework does not necessarily guarantee compliance.

The authority has ruled that the information stored in cookies is personal data, since they assign unique identifiers to a person in order to identify a specific user.

Some aspects of the use of cookies rejected by the NAIH:

It is unlawful to make it more difficult to “reject all” than to “accept all”. The “accept all” option was available at the first level (one click), whereas the “reject all” option was only available at the second level (two clicks). The “object” option, i.e. to refuse permission to place cookies for reasons of legitimate interest, was only available at the third level (after at least three clicks). We note that a similar decision was taken by the CNIL, the French Data Protection Authority in December 2022, when it fined Microsoft €60 million for its cookie management practices on the bing.com website for reasons that included that acceptance was possible with one click, but rejection required two clicks.

The information was too complicated and difficult to read. The website displayed too much information about cookies in an unreasonably small area of the screen and in a way that was readable only a few lines at a time. Overall, the information provided did not comply with the General Data Protection Regulation. Specifying the name of the data controller as “we and our partners” was not sufficiently clear, even in case of 754 partners.

Misuse of legitimate interest. The website used the term “legitimate interest” in a misleading way. It is unfair to state the same processing purposes for cookies based on consent and cookies based on legitimate interest. In the case of cookies necessary for the technical functioning of websites, the use of consent as a legal basis is excluded, but the controller did not provide an appropriate interest balancing test.

Data transfers to third countries. In several cases, the data collected by the cookies were transferred to third countries via the 754 designated partners, but the risks of transferring data to third countries were not managed and data subjects were not informed of this.

It is worth noting that civil organisations can also actively contribute to the mass proceedings by authorities against websites and apps. For example, the NOYB, led by Austrian activist Maximilian Schrems, filed nearly 300 complaints with national data protection authorities in the summer of 2022 against websites using OneTrust cookie banners.

It is therefore clear that it is now the last moment for website operators to review their websites’ cookie management practices and cookie banner settings before the NAIH does it for them.

By Emese Simon, Senior Associate, Noerr

Former Hogan Lovells Counsel Akos Kovach has been promoted to a Partner position in the firm’s Hungarian affiliate law firm of Partos & Noblet.

Kovach, who leads the firm’s Competition and Antitrust practice, initially joined the team in 2007 as an Associate. He moved to Gide in 2009 and has since rejoined Hogan Lovells in 2015 as a Counsel. He started his career as an Associate with Gide in 2001, where he spent six years as an Associate.

“We are delighted to have Akos among our ranks as a Partner,” Office Managing Partner Laszlo Partos commented. He has a robust experience in his specialist area; his practice is very complementary to our leading corporate and real estate practices. With him as a Partner we can only grow stronger.” 

“I am equally honored and delighted about taking up this new role and continuing to contribute to the growth of our firm and to further strengthen its recognition on the market,” Kovach added. “I am truly grateful to my Partners for their trust, support, and friendship.”