Category: Hungary

In order to prevent and restrain the spreading of the new Coronavirus pandemic (“COVID-19”), after the virus appeared in Europe, plenty of employers and other institutions has started to apply instruments suitable for the measurement of the body temperature.

In its notification issued on 10 March 2020, the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (in Hungarian: Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság; “NAIH”) took the view that the introduction of employer-ordered general screening tests to determine the body temperature of employees is not proportional, since the collection and assessment of COVID-19 related data is the task of the health professionals and authorities.

Following the termination of the state of emergency, the Hungarian Government introduced the state of epidemiological preparedness to the country by ordering a health crisis pursuant to Gov. Decree no. 283/2020 (VI. 17.), furthermore Gov. Decree no. 431/2020. (IX. 18.) prescribed that body temperature checks are necessary for entering public education and vocational training institutions. According to the order of the Chief Medical Officer of the State (in Hungarian: Országos Tisztifőorvos) only those persons are allowed to enter the mentioned institutions, whose body temperature is below 37,8 °C. 

With respect to the rising number of infections and to the regulations mentioned above, NAIH reviewed its previous opinion concerning the lawfulness of the mass body temperature taking procedures ordered by employers and other institutions. By changing its previous guidelines, in its notification published on 14 October 2020, NAIH took the position that measuring the body temperature is allowed and is considered fundamental, if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: 

• body temperature measurement takes place at the time of entering the building owned or used by the employer (or other organisations);

• measuring the body temperature uniformly applies to everybody, who wishes to enter the property;

• the person concerned by the temperature measurement is not identified personally for this data processing purpose; and

• the data generated by the measurement will not be recorded, stored or transferred in any ways.

NAIH emphasizes that the employer may not draw any conclusions from the results of the body temperature measurement as to whether the employee has become infected with the COVID-19 virus. Based on the result of the temperature measurement, the employer is only entitled to allow or prohibit the entrance to the property. An important restriction is that employees shall not be individually identified as having been allowed or not to enter the building by their employer due to the measured body temperature, and only statistical data can be collected from the results of the body temperature measurement (e.g. how many employees have been banned from entering the property because of elevated body temperature).

In the case when the employer prohibits the entrance because of the result of the measurement, the further steps (e.g. contacting the general practitioner; requesting sick leave) shall be taken by the employee.

By Zóra Lehoczki, Associate, Nagy és Trócsányi

White & Case and Lakatos Koves and Partners have advised Mid Europa Partners on the sale of 24% of the issued share capital of Waberer’s International Nyrt to Trevelin Holding Zrt, the Hungarian-based member of Indotek Group. Deloitte Legal reportedly advised Trevelin Holding on the deal.

According to White & Case, “Mid Europa has also granted a call option to Indotek over Mid Europa’s remaining 47.99% of the issued share capital of Waberer’s.”

Waberer’s is a European provider of international full truckload transportation company and operates domestic freight and complex logistics services in Hungary. Mid Europa listed Waberer’s on the Budapest Stock Exchange in 2017 in a floatation valuing the company at nearly GBP 250 million. 

White & Case’s team in London was led by Partners Ken Barry and Philip Broke and included Associates Will Summers, Joe Bradley, Oji Adoh, Matthew Chalk, and Emma Roker.  

Editor’s note: After this article was published, Lakatos, Koves and Partners informed CEE Legal Matters that the firm’s team was led by Counsel Pal Rahoty and Managing Partner Peter Lakatos.

Due to the extended economic effects of the coronavirus epidemic, the October tax package announced by the Hungarian Government was aimed to stimulate the investing climate. According to the Hungarian ‘economic protection operational body’, there are three different ways to revive the economy (i.e.: tax reduction, simplification of the administration, boosting investments).

The small business tax will become even more advantageous from the next year. After the Government reduced it to 12% (11% from 1 January 2021), it has now been decided to double the revenue threshold HUF 3 billion. One of the tax relief decisions will exempt intermediate sellers from the tourism development contribution, which can also directly help the most affected economic sectors, such as hotels and travel agents.

About 1.5 million public administration cases will become free of charge, and from the second half of 2021, the tax authority will prepare the VAT returns for each company. Moreover, from 2021, all first-instance administrative procedures will be exempted from stamp duty. 

It is an immensely significant amendment, because the administrative costs of businesses related to the main types of taxes alone are about HUF 420 billion.

By Gabriella Galik, Partner, KCG Partners Law Firm

The Hungarian Competition Authority (HCA) has initiated an investigation against TikTok, the popular social media platform. TikTok’s capacity to generate vast amounts of consumer data and shower its users with ads has already sounded several alarm bells as regulators attempt to make sense of the phenomena that is digitalisation. The HCA took the initiative to scrutinise the platform with a focus on consumer protection.

The overarching theme of the Hungarian investigation is TikTok’s potential failure to adequately inform consumers regarding its functioning and policies, most notably the data collected and the ways TikTok later utilises this data. In addition, the HCA raised concerns regarding the absence of Hungarian language information and the lack of efforts to moderate the exposure of youngsters to certain ads.

The investigation fits into the framework of the HCA’s digital consumer protection strategy, which has already resulted in several fascinating attempts to regulate platforms and e-commerce. The authority is especially focused on how the undertakings communicate and inform consumers regarding their business models and data-related policies. In the last years the HCA voiced concerns that even when information regarding the collection and use of consumer data is technically available, the terms and conditions are often highly complex, therefore the underlying risks remain obscure. Paired with encouraging messaging and marketing, which distracts consumers from inherent risks in online services, this behavior may qualify as unlawful under Hungarian law and result in a fine.

If the HCA’s recent approach serves as a guide, TikTok is facing a long and detailed review of its practices where significant commitments or severe sanctions cannot be excluded. There were many HCA cases to support this statement. We give a brief reminder of two of the most interesting below.

Google

In 2018, the HCA closed an investigation against Google and its messenger service. The authority took the view that Google failed to ensure that consumers have a proper understanding of how their data is treated by the tech giant and therefore cannot make an informed decision regarding the nature and costs of the service. Google presented the HCA with a comprehensive commitment package, undertaking several measures to inform consumers regarding the collection and use of their data. After a two-year investigation Google escaped sanctioning with this cooperative approach.

Academic Singles

A few months ago, the HCA closed an investigation against the dating site Academic Singles. The authority established that the dating site misled consumers regarding the necessity to pay for services, the subscription options and the cancellation policies. The communication of the dating site was confusing and lacked transparency, which resulted in several consumer complaints. As a result, besides a EUR 4,5 million fine, the HCA obliged the undertaking to amend its practices fundamentally. Academic Singles had to send a correction notice to all its present and former customers and publish the operative part of the decision on its homepage.

Other targets

In addition to the above, the HCA has closed several investigations into e-commerce. Notably, it has imposed significant fines on online retailers for not communicating diligently on the conditions of their campaigns (e.g. Black Friday sales). The authority has also fined booking.com for using consumer psychology against its consumers and failing to present payment options comprehensively. In February the HCA has also initiated an investigation against Viber, the popular messenger service. In this endeavor the authority aims to establish whether the statements “free and secure” are indeed merited considering Viber’s policies.

What to expect?

The HCA imagines the average consumer as a highly exposed individual with no means to obtain a complex overview of the implications of certain digital services. It also sees unfair competition / consumer protection as tools adequate to deal with some of the unprecedented challenges digitalisation brings. The authority undoubtedly expects a high level of transparency from undertakings participating in this transformation and urges markets to devote more resources to consumer welfare for a healthier data economy.

Considering the swift dynamics of these markets, the HCA will likely continue asserting its digital consumer protection goals in the foreseeable future.

By Andras Nagy, Attorney at Law, Schoenherr

At the beginning of October 2020, the prime minister has announced that the Hungarian Government continues the family protection measures and for this purpose, the VAT tax rate of new flats will be again 5% instead of the general VAT rate of 27% in case of constructions commenced until 31 December 2022.

It is not yet clear whether this deadline is applicable for the existence of the building permit or the commencement of the actual construction, since until now the bill regulating the amendments has not been published. However, the provisions on the reduced VAT rate will enter into force on 1 January 2021 and will be applicable expectedly for flats to be constructed or existing in a multi-unit residential building with a total net floor space not exceeding 150 square meters or for one-unit residential properties with a total net floor space not exceeding 300 square meters as it was regulated until 31 December 2019.

In addition, the state secretary responsible for family and youth affairs has also announced that in case a family purchases a new apartment using the Family Housing Subsidy Program (Hungarian abbreviation: “CSOK”), the reduced VAT rate of 5% may also be recovered from 1 January 2020.

The above measures may result in the construction of 100-200,000 new flats in the following 5-10 years and may also have an effect to the prices of the older flats.

By Lidia Suveges, Attorney at law, KCG Partners Law Firm

Economic recovery in Budapest (and Hungary) is predicted to follow an elongated L-shape curve, meaning that the effects of the pandemic are to be present and felt until at least 2023. As a kind of crisis management contribution by the sectors that were less affected by the pandemic, companies operating in these sectors would be expected to be temporarily more involved in public burden-bearing to alleviate the negative economic effects of COVID-19 in Budapest.

Although this concept is only a proposition as of the writing of this article and many details are unclear, the so called “restart tax” would affect companies with a business tax base greater than HUF 5 billion, in the following sectors: manufacturing; electricity, gas, steam supply and air conditioning; water supply, wastewater collection, treatment, waste management, decontamination; automobile trade and repair; transportation, warehousing, information, communication; financial and insurance activities; professional, scientific and technical activities; and administration and supporting service activities.

These companies would have to pay the special 0.5% tax until Budapest emerges from the economic crisis caused by pandemic. The special tax would be introduced only temporarily until full employment is achieved.

There are many questions relating to this proposal, including which annual turnover (business tax base) should be taken into account or whether group-level tax bases would matter. Additionally, based on the available information, the proposed special tax would be similar to the local business tax, which is already being payed by companies. Since only one type of tax can be introduced for the same tax subject, this seems to be a burdening factor when considering the rules limiting tax duplication and overtaxation.

According to calculations, in proportion Budapest loses three times more tax revenues than the central budget does due to the pandemic. A very high amount, 70% of the capital’s revenues come from business tax, which is expected to be only HUF 139 billion in 2020 after last year’s HUF 165 billion. To make matters worse, the operating budget of Budapest for 2020 has a HUF 69 billion deficit, that is another reason why a solution in the form of a special tax or some other measure is have to be found as soon as possible.

By Eszter Kamocsay-Berta, Managing partner, KCG Partners Law Firm

In addition to the classic tasks of a competition authority, the Hungarian Competition Authority (“HCA”) is also entitled to take action against unfair commercial practices against consumers if such practices are capable of significantly affecting competition. Following the first market study in the field of consumer protection in 2019 relating to the application of digital comparison tools (DCTs), the HCA did not hesitate to apply its findings in practice. In early 2020 it imposed a record fine on Booking.com BV for unfair commercial practices of misleadingly advertising certain hotel rooms with “free cancellation” and engaging in pressure selling. This is now followed by a decision establishing unfair practices of the biggest local market player, Szallas.hu, a main competitor of Booking.com. However, this time no fine was imposed.

The established infringement

Consumer protection law prohibits aggressive trading practices, including the application of psychological pressure on consumers for a faster and less considered decision making, and threatens such conducts with heavy fines (up to 10% of the previous year’s turnover of the undertaking concerned).

The HCA concluded that by depicting the following messages throughout the entire booking process with red highlight, szallas.hu put prohibited psychological pressure on consumers:

• “There are only 3 apartments left on our site!”, “Very popular – There are only 2 rooms left on our site!”
• “Last booking 1 October”, “Last booking 8 December”
• “3 reservations in the last 2 days”, “2 reservations since yesterday”, “5 reservations today”
• “13 people are watching”, “One person is planning to book here”
• “Hurry, because the rooms are running out fast!”

Szallas.hu claimed that its messages were true and based on objective, verifiable facts. The same was claimed by Booking.com in the prior proceeding. The HCA, however, pointed out that the fact that a message can be substantiated, does not in itself rule out that it can place undue psychological pressure on consumers, and it did not go into detail on evaluating the validity of the messages.

Even valid messages can constitute pressure selling, and this is assessed on a case-by-case basis by the HCA, taking into consideration e.g. the context, as well. In case of Szallas.hu not only the specific urging messages, but also the way in which the accommodation offers were displayed reinforced the image of popularity and limited availability, e.g. the rating of the accommodation, its place in the ranking, possible highlights, consumer reviews, etc.

Sanction – obligations imposed by the HCA; why does one case result in a record fine while the other one “only” in obligations?

The Booking.com decision of the HCA (and the enormous fine imposed on Booking.com), including the authority’s views on similar practices were released during the proceeding against Szallas.hu. Following the Booking.com decision Szallas.hu decided to fully cooperate with the HCA. The company acknowledged the infringement, removed the examined urging messages and offered commitments to the HCA.

The HCA decided in this case that it cannot accept the offered commitments resulting in  refraining from establishing the infringement, as applying urging messages in the e-commerce sector has become a widespread market practice. Therefore the HCA established the infringement also in this case, namely that Szallas.hu committed pressure selling, but instead of imposing a fine, it obliged Szallas.hu to perform the offered commitments as obligations on Szallas.hu. Pursuant to the HCA, this will cost the company approximately the same amount as the fine the HCA would have imposed.

Booking.com also tried to offer commitments in the proceeding against it. However, the HCA concluded that the commitments of Booking.com – as opposed to the commitments of Szallas.hu – were not tailored enough to the peculiarities of the Hungarian legal framework of aggressive commercial practices (but focused more on the validity of the statements, they were incapable of remedying the effects of the infringement. The HCA therefore decided in the Booking.com case not only to reject the commitments, but to disregard them even as potential obligations substituting the imposed fine. We also note that Booking.com also objected to uphold its proposed commitments for case the HCA would consider them only as a mitigating factor for the fine.

The obligations imposed on Szallas.hu consist of 5 steps. Szallas.hu must:

1. engage a third party market researcher to conduct a detailed market research and identify the communications applied in the e-commerce sector which are capable of placing psychological pressure on consumers, and conduct a qualitative and quantitative consumer research with the identified communications to find out which messages are placing unlawful psychological pressure on consumers in reality.;
2. amend its practices in accordance with the result of the research and the decision of the HCA;

• conduct an information campaign in 2021 and inform the market players on the decision of the HCA and the results of the research in a way that they will be able to amend their own practices accordingly;

1. increase consumer awareness on pressure selling by conducting a media campaign. This must include the creation of an information website, releasing TV spots and YouTube advertisements;
2. set up an independent expert board with 3 members which will exercise prior control over the application of new communication practices at the company for at least 3 years.

Based on the HCA’s considerations, it is unlikely that a company engaging in similar prohibited practices would be able to escape the fine by offering commitments to the HCA in the future.

Takeaway

The Szallas.hu decision comes as next in the line of the HCA’s novel decisions punishing pressure selling, after the Booking.com decision. By these decisions the HCA seems to take a stricter approach than most of the other regulators in Europe, which have focused on the validity of popularity messaging so far. 

However, the current decision has failed to provide sufficiently detailed guidelines for the market on what would constitute an acceptable practice. For instance, the HCA has still not elaborated clearly the difference between the depiction of information considered useful for consumers (e.g. the number of remaining rooms) and prohibited pressure selling. In the Booking.com decision the HCA merely concluded that information on limited stock can only be displayed at a late stage of the search / booking process, namely after the specific hotel has been chosen for a specific date. In the Szallas.hu decision the HCA added that information on limited stocks can be displayed if it is presented in a neutral manner. Information on stocks or the popularity of a hotel should be provided in a way (taking into account their overall impact with other messages) that does not lead to consumers associating it with limited availability. E.g. in view of the HCA “last month / year Z of our guests stayed here” is acceptable, but “X reservations in the last Y days” under the circumstances may be considered pressure selling. In any case, neither Booking.com nor Szallas.hu could successfully jump this hurdle.

The obligations imposed on Szallas.hu, including the market research will likely provide a better understanding of the consumer’s actual views on the issue of pressure selling. It is only to be hoped that it may help to contribute to clarify the border between the lawful and prohibited communications to market players, as well as to consumers. Nevertheless, it is peculiar that the Hungarian regulator has practically outsourced its investigation of identifying potentially infringing practices to an infringing party.

By Anna Turi, Counsel, and Márk Kovács, Associate, Schoenherr

Reclaiming VAT on bad debts under the new 2020 rules may well conjure up images of a TV show obstacle course.  Initial experiences suggest that anyone trying to reclaim VAT will be up against the wall. But the undertaking isn’t unfeasible.

It’s widely known by now that Hungarian lawmakers, however unwillingly, made it possible, from 1 January 2020, for VAT paid by taxpayers on bad debts to be reclaimed.  It’s clear from the law’s wording that parliament set a dense thicket of obstacles in front of taxpayers attempting to exercise this right.  The practices of the tax authorities with regard to such claims add yet another layer of difficulty. Anyone minded to reclaim VAT in this fashion should definitely don their ninja dress and gird themselves. 

Ground rules

Even the ground rules themselves are formulated in such a way that only the most buffed-up competitors will consider the challenge. Some types of claim are out of the question straight off the bat, such as receivables from transactions prior to 2016 or receivables where the buyer is a consumer (an individual), not a company.

On top of all this, the rules require, among other things, that taxpayers exercise their rights in line with their purpose. A statement with specified content must be sent to the customer in advance. A detailed self-audit is required, too. And what qualifies as a permanently irrecoverable claim, and when, is also strictly specified.

So it’s no wonder many people don’t even bother. But what awaits the intrepid?

The course

First up, the warm-up circuit: the claim must be ‘irrecoverable’. Several conditions must be met here. One of the most important is to document insolvency proceedings (e.g. enforcement, liquidation) proving irrecoverability. Be prepared for the tax authority to ask for a number of related documents after the self-audit. When it comes to liquidation, a document certifying the registration of the claim must be enclosed as well as the liquidator’s statement that there are no significant assets to cover the claim. Further, the liquidation order and any other relevant documents available are required.

The second hurdle relates to our debtor, that is, our buyer. The tax authority, on the one hand, will ask for the notification that has been sent before the self-audit. It’s important that dispatch of the pre-notification (and better yet its receipt) can be verified and that all the prescribed data is contained therein. 

The tax authority also requires us to exercise due diligence when establishing a business relationship with our customer. We must check that at the time of sale, for example, our buyer wasn’t made a liquidation or bankrupty procedure, and that the tax authorities haven’t blacklisted them. On top of this, the tax authority looks at whether our customer’s financial statements were deposited regularly and on time, for example, and whether their accounts have been auditied (if audit was required).

The final gate to hell is the requirement of the “proper exercise of rights”. Here, the tax authority inspects virtually all the circumstances of the transaction and how the claim arose; and may even request contact with the debtor. (In our specific case, the tax authority wanted to know why the company continued to sell after the debtor’s initial non-payment and thus further accumulated their receivables.) 

Fair play?

Congratulations to anyone who gets to the finish line of the above course full of unexpected obstacles: mission impossible accomplished. But what can those participants do, who failed during the race?

In fact, just like its ruling on the Hungarian Porr case, the European Court of Justice passes more and more decisions in respect of reclaiming VAT on bad debts. Given this and the basic principles of the EU VAT system, the Hungarian legislation, as it stands, may very well be in conflict with EU law in several respects. Most likely, one such restriction is that which forbids VAT from being reclaimed when it comes to sales to consumers. This is also likely the case with the rules that do not regard a claim as permanently irrecoverable, if less than two years have passed since the liquidation of the debtor. Or, for example, the expectation, introduced on the pretext of the “proper exercise of rights”, that every possible step must be taken to recover the debt, even when this would be economically irrational.

So before submitting the self-audit, it’s worthwhile preparing thoroughly. An unsuspecting competitor may be sunk before the finishing line by a tax inspection arriving unexpectedly. But if we see that the impossible conditions are set, it does no harm to get the rulebook rewritten.

By Tamas Feher, Partner, Jalsovszky

Despite some political and legal debates between Hungary and the European Union, Baker McKenzie Partner Marton Horanyi, who also co-heads the firm’s Antitrust and Competition practice group in Hungary, says, “not much out of the ordinary” is going on, politically. “In fact, investors in Hungary appreciate that things have been rather stable now for the past few years.”

Horanyi says that Covid-19 is still the word of the day. “In the spring, Hungary implemented severe measures to curb the effects of the virus,” he says. This resulted in a special legal order, a so called “state of danger,” which was introduced in the spring, giving additional power to the Government. “The state of danger was lifted in June – without a hint that it would be reintroduced – and we are now in a state of public health emergency,” Horanyi reports. This state still allows the Government access to certain additional powers, albeit fewer than during the state of danger. “There are border restrictions in place and the Government can restrict the opening of businesses, regulate how institutions open, and what goes on in schools,” he says.

Horanyi says that “the Government is pouring money onto the market right now in an effort to not just help businesses survive, but also to incentivize investments in order to push the economy forward.” He notes that “it will be only in hindsight that we will be able to see the results of these measures.” Still, he says, barring severe consequences and unforeseeable complications, current indications “strongly support a bounce-back, despite the growth of our national debt.” He adds that his optimism stems from the fact that “in key industries there have been no massive layoffs, and although businesses are careful, many players are also looking for opportunities to grow.” At the time of writing, Hungary has over 30,000 active cases of the new coronavirus, with nearly 900 deaths.

Finally, Horanyi reports that, for him and his Antitrust and Competition team at Baker McKenzie, “work has continued as normal – we are kept very busy.” He describes the new President of Hungary’s Competition Office, Csaba Rigo, who took over in the spring, as “very committed to further enhancing the effectiveness of the office.” According to him, “this is already visible and there is a lot of activity in terms of combating anticompetitive practices – cleaning the market of unfair behavior, false advertisements, and the like.” According to Horanyi, Rigo’s experience as the former President of the Hungarian Public Procurement Authority is reflected in his “vigor to step up against public procurement cartels as well,” and he says that this can “help a lot in cleaning up public tendering procedures.”

By virtue of Government Decree 408/2020 (VIII.30.), Hungary closed its borders to non-Hungarian citizens as of 1 September 2020. The new rules abolish the tricolour system of green, yellow and red countries we reported on earlier, qualifying literally all countries as red.

The basic rules

Hungarian citizens may return to Hungary from any country but must undergo 10-day quarantine unless they test negative for COVID-19 twice. Non-Hungarian citizens having permanent residence in Hungary and those who are entitled to stay in Hungary for more than 90 days are to be treated the same way as Hungarian citizens.

The same rules apply to professional athletes who are a member of a Hungarian sports organisation, employees of Hungarian cultural organisations and persons participating in an international sports event held abroad by an invitation or delegation issued by a Hungarian sports organisation, if this person enters Hungary after participating in an international sports or cultural event held abroad.

Foreign citizens (not listed above) may generally not enter Hungary. By contrast, the government decree recognises exceptions, for example in the case of commuters from a neighbouring country or in the case of a verifiable reasonable cause (e.g. compulsory court procedures, funerals, weddings or studies, and additional exceptions for those participating in sports or cultural events).

Business travel

Similar to the restrictions during the first wave of infections, the government decree recognises exceptions for business travel.

This means that employees and representatives of entities having an affiliated company in Hungary can enter Hungary without any further restriction. Upon crossing the borders, the business purpose of the travel (e.g. by presenting an employment contract or invitation letter) must be substantiated. On the other hand, the traveller is not expected to present proof of the legal relationship between the respective companies, but ideally such a relationship should be apparent from the documents they are carrying.

If a Hungarian citizen leaves Hungary for business, they may return to Hungary without any restriction if they prove upon returning that the trip was for business purposes.

Exceptions for Visegrad countries

In line with the above restrictions, the government introduced new easements by virtue of Government Decree 419/2020 (IX.1.) concerning travel among the Visegrad countries (V4), i.e. Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland.

Hungarian citizens and their non-Hungarian family members coming from Visegrad countries may be exempted from compulsory quarantine if they test negative for COVID-19 once (instead of twice under the general rules), provided they had bookings for accommodation prior to 1 September 2020.

Slovak, Czech and Polish citizens may also enter Hungary if they have booked accommodation for at least one night before 30 September and were tested negative for COVID-19 once five days prior to entering Hungary.

While reclosing the borders appears to be a straightforward measure against the pandemic, it could contradict the EU’s basic principle of free movement. But is that the case here?

As a rule, such restrictions may be imposed if they are proportionate, non-discriminatory and are based on the public health situation. It should be added, however, that so far there is no harmonised EU-wide framework establishing the criteria for travel restrictions. Therefore, the Member States are free to set up their own rules, including quarantine obligations or tests, while complying with the requirement of proportionality and non-discrimination.

In this vein, the restrictions are somewhat hard to explain when it comes to restricting the free movement of some EU citizens more than others and where the easements for V4 citizens were not explained in the context of a health crisis. This indeed suggests that the new border measures disproportionally favour travellers from the V4 countries, which explains why the European Commission warned Hungary about discriminating against EU citizens right after the government decree was passed.

By Daniel Gera, Counsel, and Alexandra Bognar, Attorney at Law, Schoenherr