Litigation 2026 Comparisons

Fundamental Characteristics of the Hungarian Legal System

The Hungarian legal system is a civil law system; therefore, it relies on codified statutes as sources of law. Accordingly, the courts’ primary function is to interpret the statutory provisions in individual legal disputes. Furthermore, since 2021 the decisions of the Hungarian Supreme Court (ie, Curia) have had a binding effect on the courts regarding the relevant legal issues dealt with by them (ie, limited system of precedent).

The Role of Judges in Civil Procedures

Hungarian civil court procedures are based on the principle of the parties’ disposition, which means that the court shall be bound by the requests and statements submitted and made by the parties. There are only a few exceptions to this rule, when the court decides on a matter during the proceedings ex officio, even in the absence of a request to that effect from the parties. It also follows from the principle of the parties’ disposition that the court does not take evidence ex officio.

Main Characteristics of Legal Proceedings

Regarding civil procedures, the Hungarian system primarily relies on written submissions, especially in the preparatory stage of lawsuits, while during the hearings remarks and arguments of the parties can be submitted orally as well.

The Structure of the Hungarian Court System

Hungary’s judicial system has four levels: local courts, county courts, higher courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. Local courts conduct proceedings as a first instance in most of the cases. County courts proceed at first instance in cases specified by the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) and review the appeals submitted against the first instance judgments and orders of local courts. Higher courts of appeal proceed as the second instance of county courts.

The Supreme Court has jurisdictional powers such as considering appeals in exceptional cases and reviewing final and binding judgments as an extraordinary legal remedy.

Court Specialisation

As a general rule, there are no specialised courts for specific types of litigation. Although courts hearing civil cases are currently not organisationally separate from courts hearing administrative and labour cases, these cases are adjudicated by different collegiums of the courts, and these types of cases have their separate or partially separate rules of procedure.

Overall, therefore, specialised expertise is provided, although the different cases are judged according to largely the same set of rules.

The Time Required to Commence the Trial

In Hungary, it usually takes between four and six months from the initiation of the lawsuit – ie, the submission of the statement of claim – for the courts to schedule a preparatory hearing.

Furthermore, it usually takes between six and eight months from the submission of the statement of claim for the court to conclude the preparatory phase and commence the evidentiary stage.

Statutory provisions as to the publicity of court proceedings require that every hearing of the court must be open to the public, while the filings of the proceedings are only available for those who can demonstrate a legitimate interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Nevertheless, the CCP enables the court to protect the hearings or filings or parts thereof from disclosure depending on the subject matter of the case or the sensitivity of the data involved.

Whether proceedings are pending between certain parties in a certain type of case, the court registry provides information upon request.

According to the CCP, legal representation is mandatory during the litigation procedure, except in actions falling within the subject matter jurisdiction of local courts. For specific types of litigation, the CCP may provide otherwise, such as in the case of labour cases, where legal representation is not mandatory.

A person may pursue the professional activities of a lawyer, including legal representation before Hungarian courts, as a member of the regional bar association.

The regional bar association may admit a person as a lawyer if that person complies with the requirements set out in Act LXXVIII of 2017 on Attorneys.

This means that foreign lawyers may act as legal representatives before Hungarian courts only if they are admitted to a Hungarian regional bar association, which requires a certain level of knowledge of Hungarian law.

Litigation funding is not defined under Hungarian law and it is not widely used in lawsuits in Hungary. However, legislative amendments entering into force in January 2025, which increase procedural fees, may influence the use of litigation funding, as higher litigation costs could make such arrangements more attractive.

In the absence of specific regulations, the means of litigation funding are not disclosed to the court and the courts do not issue any cost order (or other decision) that in any way reflects the fact that the proceedings were financed by a third party. The court may not refer to third parties in the judgment for the purposes of cost allocation. Therefore, under the current laws, litigation funding transactions remain contractual matters outside of the scope of the respective lawsuit.

There are no legal regulations restricting or permitting third-party funding in specific categories of lawsuits.

Third-party funding is available for both plaintiffs and defendants.

There is no restriction on minimum and maximum amounts of third-party funding.

However, market actors undertaking third-party funding usually define a minimum amount relating to the case value and they will only consider funding cases where the case value exceeds their minimum amount.

There is no established practice regarding what costs third-party funders would cover.

Contingency fees are permitted by Hungarian law; however, fees exceeding two-thirds of the legal fees incurred are not enforceable before the courts, as set out in Act LXXVIII of 2017 on Attorneys.

There is no legal restriction on when a party to the litigation should obtain third-party funding in the course of the proceedings.

Any overdue claim of a pecuniary nature only, whose amount does not exceed HUF3 million may first be recovered by way of a payment order procedure only, or by attempting a settlement in a mediation procedure, provided that the parties have a known domestic address and the pecuniary claim does not originate from an employment relationship.

In certain special cases, the law also prescribes other mandatory preliminary procedures – eg, mandatory preliminary proceedings before the press in press correction lawsuits, or non-contentious enforcement proceedings prior to lawsuits seeking termination of enforcement. Failure to complete such procedures results in rejection of the statement of claim without a decision on the merits.

Before commencing a lawsuit, sending a notice letter is not obligatory in legal disputes. Regardless of the requirements, it is common in Hungary to send a notice letter to the other party in order to open a dialogue.

The General Provisions on the Statute of Limitations

The general limitation period for contractual claims is five years according to the Hungarian Civil Code. The limitation period commences from the due date of the claim.

In damages cases, claims become due when the damage occurs; the limitation period therefore begins at the time of the damage. This may be crucial where the date of the harmful event differs from the date the damage actually materialises.

The Hungarian Civil Code also sets out special limitation periods. It is also allowed and enforceable for contracting parties to agree on a limitation period that is different (longer or shorter) from the statutory limitation period, provided that the agreement aiming at changing the limitation period is executed in writing. Nevertheless, by force of law, any agreement excluding statutory limitation altogether is deemed null and void.

The statute of limitations can only be considered by courts if one of the parties pleads that the claim is time-barred (not ex officio) and the court shall decide on the statute of limitations in its judgment on the merits.

Interruption of the Statute of Limitations

The limitation period may be interrupted in certain cases – eg, if the debt is acknowledged by the obligor.

The limitation period recommences after interruption or following the final conclusion of the proceedings on interruption.

Pausing of the Statute of Limitations

If the obligee is unable to enforce a claim for an excusable reason, the limitation period may be paused.

If the statute of limitations is paused, the claim remains enforceable for one year from the removal of the impediment, or, where the original limitation period is one year or less, for three months, even if the statutory period has already expired or less than one year – or less than three months, as applicable – would otherwise remain.

Jurisdictional questions in cross-border cases are primarily determined by the rules set out in international treaties and EU regulations, as well as Hungarian domestic laws.

Within the European Union, the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) generally governs jurisdiction. As a general rule, persons domiciled in a member state shall be sued before the courts of that member state. Special jurisdictional grounds are also set out in the Brussels Ia Regulation.

The applicability of national rules is also limited by the international conventions to which Hungary is a party, since if such convention exists, it is applicable instead of national legislation. Such conventions include the 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and bilateral legal aid treaties.

In cases not covered by EU regulations or international treaties, Act XXVIII of 2017 on Private International Law provides additional rules for determining jurisdiction.

Hungarian law – similarly to the Brussels Ia Regulation – accepts choice of court agreements.

If a Hungarian court has jurisdiction, the next step is to determine – under Hungarian law – which court has the subject matter and territorial competence to adjudicate the dispute.

The court proceeding shall be initiated by the plaintiff by a statement of claim which has extensive formal and content requirements.

The application must consist of three parts: an introductory section, a substantive section, and a concluding section. The introductory section must contain information about the parties and the court.

The substantive part of a statement of claim shall indicate the claim, legal provisions, facts and legal reasoning.

The closing section of the statement of claim must include information regarding the jurisdiction, the legal capacity of the parties, the value of the claim, and the applicable fees.

The first instance procedure is divided into two distinct stages: the preparatory stage and the evidentiary stage. The claim may be amended at the preparatory stage if the amended claim arises from the same or a legally and factually related legal relationship as the previous claim.

In the evidentiary stage, parties are generally not allowed to change their previous statements or adduce further evidence. At this point, the statement of claim may only be amended in certain special cases (in case of new facts or substantial guidelines set by the proceeding court).

If the statement of claim complies with the formal and content requirements and the procedural prerequisites are met, the proceeding court serves the statement of claim on the defendant and requests the defendant to submit its statement of defence within the statutory time limit.

Thus, informing the adversary about the initiated lawsuit falls to the court itself via postal services in domestic cases. Furthermore, if the defendant is domiciled in a foreign country, the Hungarian courts perform services according to either the Hague Service Convention or the relevant EU regulation on services. 

Under the CCP, the court will automatically issue a court injunction (a summary judgment) if the defendant fails to present its statement of defence before the deadline. If the defendant only disputes the claim in general terms, which contains neither formal defence nor substantive defence, a court injunction may be adopted.

In the court injunction, all remedies shall be ordered by the court as requested by the plaintiff.  Nevertheless, any of the parties may file, within 15 days from delivery, an opposition against the court injunction and, provided this is duly accompanied by a proper statement of defence, the court injunction loses its effect and the case continues.

Under the rules of the CCP, representative actions can be brought whenever a statute makes it possible due to reasons of public interest. For example, a representative action may be brought to declare unfair general terms and conditions that form part of a contract between a consumer and a business invalid by the public prosecutor and other persons, as set out in the Hungarian Civil Code. The CCP sets out special rules for representative actions.

In addition, Hungarian law recognises collective actions in the form of an “associated action” in disputes arising from consumer contracts, breaches of labour law and damage caused by environmental pollution.

Hungarian law does not impose any requirement for lawyers to provide clients with a cost estimate of the potential litigation at the outset.

The party may request the court to order an injunctive relief, which the court orders before the hearings if it considers it justified. The provisions on the injunctive relief are set out in 6 Injunctive Relief.

There are no further interim applications that would be available for the parties before the hearing of a claim.

Termination of the Case

In its statement of defence, the defendant may submit a formal defence, in which it requests the court to terminate the proceedings on formal grounds, without adjudicating the claim on the merits. Therefore, if the defendant considers that the court should not have accepted the claim, it may invoke the existence of a procedural obstacle and ask for the termination of the case. The court shall decide on this matter at first.

If the court considers that a ground set out in the CCP for terminating the case exists, it needs to terminate the case ex officio – ie, even if the defendant did not request the termination.

The court shall terminate the procedure in certain cases specified by the CCP in an exhaustive list.

If the court considers that the lawsuit should not be terminated, the court shall proceed with the evidentiary part of the lawsuit and adjudicate the claim on the merits.

Partial Judgment

The court may decide on separate claims or parts of a claim that can be adjudicated separately by delivering a partial judgment if further hearings are needed to decide on the remaining claims or the remaining parts of a claim. This means that certain issues can be settled earlier than the complete conclusion of the procedure, although, in practice, courts rarely adopt partial judgments.

Interlocutory Judgment

Furthermore, if the dispute pertaining to the existence of a right enforced by an action can be separated from the dispute pertaining to the amount or volume claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of that right, the court may establish the existence of that right by delivering an interlocutory judgment. In such an event, the hearing pertaining to the amount or volume claimed by the plaintiff shall not be continued before the interlocutory judgment becomes final and binding. This mechanism can expedite proceedings by ensuring that the legal basis is clarified before the court undertakes a potentially extensive assessment of quantum.

The CCP does not regulate dispositive motions as such, thus, there are no commonly made dispositive motions. Nevertheless, in its statement of defence, a defendant may ask the court to terminate the proceedings, which is similar to a “motion to dismiss” in common law systems. However, no similar institution exists under Hungarian law to the “summary judgment motion” of the common law systems.

If a person has a legal interest in the outcome of a pending action between other persons, that person may intervene in the lawsuit in order to facilitate the success of the party with identical interests.

The intervenor may exercise his or her procedural rights after the decision approving the intervention is adopted. With the exception of settlement, acknowledgement or waiver of a right, an intervenor may perform any act that the party he or she supports is entitled to perform.

Furthermore, such cases are also regulated by the CCP when certain persons join the proceedings later as defendants or plaintiffs.

For example, if the plaintiff brought the action against someone other than the person against whom the claim can be enforced, the plaintiff may involve that other person as defendant in its claim before the order closing the preparatory stage is adopted. If the court permits the involvement, it shall dismiss the previous defendant from the action. The plaintiff may also extend its claim against further defendants pursuant to certain requirements of the CCP.

As regards the plaintiffs, a person may join an action brought by another person as a co-litigant of the plaintiff, if, according to the rules of joint actions, they would otherwise have been entitled to initiate the proceedings together.

A plaintiff whose domicile, seat or habitual place of residence is not in a member state of the EU, or EEA, or in another country regarded as the same according to an international treaty must, at the request of the defendant, provide security covering the litigation costs of the defendant unless:

• an international agreement entered into by Hungary provides otherwise;
• the plaintiff was granted cost exemption due to personal circumstances;
• the plaintiff has a claim acknowledged by the defendant; or
• the plaintiff owns immovable property in Hungary or another asset registered in a register of certified authenticity that serves as appropriate security.

Under the CCP, the costs of interim applications – such as applications for interim measures or motions for evidencing – are generally treated as part of the total litigation costs.

The court does not usually decide immediately on who bears the costs of such motions. Instead, these costs are typically decided together with the final judgment, as part of the general allocation of litigation costs.

If it is likely that the costs incurred will reach a more significant sum, or if it is justified on grounds of other circumstances, the court may order the party seeking the measure to deposit the anticipated costs with the court, even before the costs have been incurred.

Furthermore, costs in connection with the taking of evidence may also emerge, which are paid in advance by the party who has an interest in the taking of that evidence.

As a general rule, the court shall take the necessary measures within thirty days after the receipt of a submission filed with the court, the expiry of a time limit for filing a submission, or the occurrence of another event giving reason for a measure.

Under Hungarian law, a party cannot request that the application or motion be dealt with on an urgent basis by the court. However, the CCP or other acts may provide that certain proceedings or a procedural act are to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

The Hungarian CCP does not allow for discovery in civil cases.

The Hungarian CCP does not allow for discovery in civil cases.

The Hungarian CCP does not allow for discovery in civil cases.

The CCP is based on the principle of freedom of proof. Thus, generally speaking, all types of evidence are admissible, but in most cases, evidence is presented to the court in the form of written documents. However, the CCP does not consider statements by a party or the party’s representative as evidence, but may take them into account when establishing the facts.

Although there is no discovery in Hungarian civil procedure, the CCP introduced the notion of an “evidentiary predicament”.

An evidentiary predicament exists when a party is able to substantiate, with a probable degree of certainty, that:

• the other party possesses all the relevant information for his or her motion of evidence and that the party has taken appropriate measures to obtain that information;
• the party is unable to prove its statements but the opposing party can reasonably be expected to refute the alleged facts; or
• evidence could not be successfully produced due to reasons attributable to the opposing party.

The other party may decide to attach the means of proof or, failing this, give reasons for why the conditions of the evidentiary predicament are not present.

If the judge is satisfied on this point, the legal consequence of an evidentiary predicament is that the factual statement(s) which the disadvantaged party sought to prove may be accepted as true.

The CCP does not set out restrictions on what types of evidence can be requested in case of an evidentiary predicament.

All facts, information and data of which a lawyer gained knowledge in the course of carrying out his or her professional activities qualify as attorney–client privileged information. As a general rule, the lawyer shall keep all attorney–client privileged information confidential, including any documents.

The lawyer shall refuse to give testimony or report on attorney–client privileged information in any court procedures unless he or she was exempted from his or her obligation of confidentiality by the person entitled to grant such attorney–client privileged information. However, no exemption may be validly granted for making a testimony and reporting on any attorney–client privileged information obtained as a defence counsel.

With regard to documents containing business secrets, professional secrets, or any other secret specified by Hungarian acts, the parties, other persons participating in the procedure and their representatives may only access documents subject to the order and rules set by the presiding judge, and after making a written statement on undertaking the duty to preserve any such secret. If the person entitled to grant an exemption from confidentiality declares in due time that he or she does not consent to the inspection of the document, no part of the document containing such secrets may be inspected by any person other than the court, the keeper of the minutes or the transcriber.

As discovery is not defined, no special rules exist that would allow a party not to disclose a document.

However, the consequences of not proving or unsuccessfully proving a fact shall be borne by the party who is obliged to prove that fact – ie, the party with an interest in having the fact accepted by the court as true.

The Awarding of Injunctive Relief

Injunctive relief can be awarded in four categories of cases:

• First, the court may award injunctive relief in order to prevent any change to the current situation if it would be impossible to restore the original situation subsequently.
• Second, injunctive relief may be awarded to ensure that it would not become impossible for the requesting party to exercise his or her rights subsequently.
• Third, injunctive relief may be awarded to avert any imminent threat of harm to the requesting party.
• Finally, the CCP gives the courts discretion by allowing such measures for any special and equitable reason. Whether this is the case is, however, strictly interpreted by the courts, which only grant such requests in a narrow range of circumstances.

Forms of Injunctive Relief

The CCP does not specify in detail what kind of injunctive relief a party may request but states that it may consist of an obligation to behave in a way that the plaintiff would be entitled to demand on the basis of the right asserted in the lawsuit. The claim and the request for injunctive relief do not necessarily have to be identical, but injunctive relief cannot be awarded in respect of a matter not at issue in the lawsuit.

Hungarian law does not permit injunctive relief that would constitute a prohibition on bringing parallel proceedings in another jurisdiction. Under Hungarian law and jurisdiction, the issue of parallel proceedings is governed by the rules on lis pendens, which results in the termination of the procedure.

According to the CCP, the court shall adjudicate the request injunctive relief as a matter of priority and shall make its arrangements without delay, but within eight days at the latest. However, in practice, a request for an interim measure is usually adjudicated within a month.

With regard to the adjudication process, the CCP stipulates that the court shall allow the opposing party to submit a statement on the application for injunctive relief. The court shall give the parties the opportunity to respond to the application in the manner it deems most appropriate and, if it deems it necessary, may also hear the parties in person.

Subsequently, in light of the court’s decision on the merits, if the court rejects the applicant’s claim, the injunctive relief becomes “unlawful” because the applicant would not have been entitled to demand a measure. Therefore, in order to balance the interests of the parties, the applicant’s opponent may file a claim for damages against the applicant.

Compensation is more effective if the successful party is not obliged to bring a separate damages action, and the issue is addressed in the main proceedings.

Thus, the court shall require the provision of security as a condition for applying for injunctive relief if the opposing party can substantiate the disadvantages resulting from the requested measure that could serve as a ground for claiming damages.

The CCP does not set out restrictions on whether injunctive relief could only be granted against the opponent’s assets located in Hungary. However, Hungarian authorities cannot enforce measures against foreign assets. Foreign authorities would need to act, and they may choose whether or not to recognise the Hungarian decision.

As injunctive relief must always remain within the bounds of the right asserted in the lawsuit, such measures cannot be granted against third parties.

An order on interim measures is preliminarily enforceable – ie, shall be declared enforceable regardless of an appeal and before the case is adjudicated on the merits. Thus, if the respondent fails to comply with the terms of an injunction, it may be enforced in accordance with the rules of judicial enforcement.

In the course of the preparatory stage of the proceedings, after the written preparation the courts schedule a preparatory hearing. At the beginning of the preparatory hearing, the court summarises the statements that are significant with respect to the dispute.

The court allows and usually calls upon the parties to present their preparatory statements and plead their cases.

Closure of the preparatory stage has significant consequences: it fixes the factual framework, legal claims and evidence, which may only be amended in exceptional circumstances during the evidentiary phase.

During the evidentiary stage, the court conducts the evidentiary procedure within the framework defined in the preparatory stage and decides on the case. Accordingly, the court hears the witnesses and, in certain cases, may also hear the expert in relation to the written expert opinion.

The court may also order, at any stage and ex officio, the personal hearing of a party or its statutory representative.

Under the CCP, there are no specific rules for shorter hearings or case management hearings. However, the aim of the preparatory hearings is to define the scope of the lawsuit, which in practice includes setting a general course and timetable for the proceedings, which can be modified at a later date.

Generally, a court of first instance is composed of a single judge. In certain cases specified by law, the court of first instance shall proceed in a panel composed of one judge and two jurors. For example, the CCP requires the participation of jurors in labour law actions.

During the preparatory stage, the parties may submit evidence or motions for evidence at court hearings without restriction.

However, in the evidentiary stage, parties are generally not allowed to change their previous statements or submit further evidence.

As an exception to this rule, evidence may be submitted later if, for example, a party becomes aware of it only after the closure of the preparatory phase.

Experts may be involved either by a party (as private experts) or by court order. Experts appointed in other proceedings may also be used. There is no hierarchy between private and court-appointed experts, whose opinions have equal probative value.

The CCP regulates in detail the preparation and submission of private expert opinions. The opposing party must be able to participate in the process: the expert must inform them of examinations carried out, and they may submit comments, which the expert must address in the opinion.

As a general rule, the court may not order expert evidence ex officio in civil proceedings, although it may put questions to the expert. Under Hungarian law, there is no expert witness; instead, experts testify on technical issues, while witnesses testify as to historical facts, and the two functions must remain distinct.

As a general rule, the courts adjudicate the legal dispute between the parties at a public hearing, and the judgment delivered at the hearing shall be announced publicly.

However, the court can exclude the public from the entire hearing or a part thereof if doing so is justified on grounds of the protection of classified data, business secrets, other protected secrets, public morals, minors, or a party’s personality rights.

Inspection of hearing transcripts is subject to the rules on access to documents. Those other than the parties, intervenors, their representatives, experts or the prosecutor may only receive information if they demonstrate a legal interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

In Hungarian civil proceedings, the judge plays an active procedural role – setting the hearing, managing evidence and the evidentiary procedure, questioning parties and witnesses, and defining the issues for decision.

Courts also have an important role in case management on the merits. This means that if a statement made by a party is incomplete, or the party did not provide evidence regarding a relevant fact, the court informs the parties accordingly.

The court also informs the parties if it interprets a legal provision invoked by the parties differently, it detects any fact that it shall take into account ex officio, or it is not bound by the party’s claim by virtue of law.

It generally takes around six to eight months from the submission of the statement of claim for the court to close the preparatory stage.

In simple cases, the judgment is issued at the first oral hearing of the evidentiary stage, while in more complicated matters, especially if witnesses or experts must be heard, more than one oral hearing may be necessary.

The first-instance judgment in a simple case can be expected to be issued within eight to ten months of filing the claim. In more complicated cases, a first-instance judgment may be expected within 18-24 months.

The appeal procedure may take six to ten months from the issuance of the first instance judgment.

If the parties agree to settle a lawsuit, they may decide to submit the settlement agreement for approval to the court or not to submit a settlement agreement but request the court mutually to terminate the proceedings.

If the parties decide to submit their settlement agreement to the court, court approval is required to settle the lawsuit. Approval is only granted if the settlement complies with the statutory provisions relevant to the subject matter of the case. Court-approved settlements have the same effect as a judgment.

The CCP contains no explicit provision on the confidentiality of settlements; however, an order approving or rejecting a settlement may only be rendered at a hearing since the parties’ declarations must be made orally before the court.

As hearings are, in principle, public, the settlement of the lawsuit may only remain confidential if the court has ordered a closed hearing, in accordance with the relevant rules.

Nevertheless, courts do not publish orders approving settlements, not even in anonymised form.

As court-approved settlements have the same effect as a judgment, they are equally enforceable under the same rules as judgments.

Both the court order approving the settlement and the order refusing the approval can be challenged by an appeal by either party.

The court of second instance is entitled to set aside the settlement and order the court of first instance to conduct the proceedings if approving the settlement was against the law.

Forms of Awards

Depending on the type of the statement of claim, the court adopts a judgment, which may include an imposition of an obligation on the defendant, a declaration that a right or legal relationship exists or does not exist, or a change in the legal status or relationship of the parties (creation, termination or modification), or, of course, the rejection of the claim.

The court may also adopt partial judgments and interlocutory judgments in special cases.

Remedies Against a Judgment

The main ordinary remedy is the appeal, which allows a party to contest a first instance judgment and certain court orders before a higher court. The appellate court examines both the legal and factual elements of the case.

Among the extraordinary remedies, a judicial review may be sought against a final judgment from the Curia (Supreme Court) in cases involving significant legal errors or violations of substantive law.

Another extraordinary remedy is the retrial, which enables the reopening of a final case when new facts, evidence, or circumstances arise that could have affected the original judgment.

Punitive damages are not available in Hungary; however, special forms of liability for damages apply in cases involving, for example, hazardous activities or product liability.

There is no special rule on limiting the maximum amount of damages. However, based on the general rules regarding extracontractual liability, the maximum sum of damages is limited by the foreseeability thereof.

A party may be exempt from delictual damages according to the test of generally expected behaviour, while in case of liability for breach of contract, the conditions for this exemption are very strict and difficult to meet.

The interest to be paid by the losing party is calculated according to the relevant provisions of substantive law governing the legal relationship between the parties, irrespective of the date of the judgment. Therefore, the interest accrues until the sum of the claim is paid to the successful party from the date when the claim became due.

Enforcement of domestic judgments is primarily governed by Act LIII of 1994 on Judicial Enforcement, while the CCP determines when a judgment becomes enforceable. A domestic judgment may be enforced once it has become final and binding, or if it has been declared preliminary enforceable by the court. In such cases, the court issues an enforcement clause, which certifies that the decision is enforceable.

Enforcement is carried out by court bailiffs, members of the Hungarian Association of Judicial Officers under the supervision of the competent district court. The enforcement proceeding is initiated upon the request of the successful party.

The enforcement mechanisms available include the attachment of bank accounts or wages, the seizure and sale of movable or immovable property, the enforcement of receivables from third parties, and the compulsory performance of non-monetary obligations, such as eviction or the delivery of specific property.

Legal Basis for the Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment

First, according to EU law, judgments brought by courts seated in member states shall be ex lege considered as decisions of Hungarian courts and enforced in the same way as Hungarian judgments.

Second, judgments of other foreign courts may be enforced based on Hungarian law, international conventions or reciprocity.

Procedure for Recognition of a Foreign Judgment

The recognition of a foreign judgment shall take place upon the request of the party seeking for enforcement in Hungary. The Hungarian court shall verify whether the judgment is in compliance with the respective rules and prerequisites of enforceability. The merits of the case in which the judgment was brought will not be examined.

If the foreign judgment complies with the applicable rules in respect of recognition and enforceability, the court issues an enforcement certificate stating that the judgment shall be enforced in the same way as decisions of Hungarian courts.

The general legal remedy available against judgments is called an appeal, which shall be considered by the second instance courts. Against the second instance judgment, there is no further appeal available in civil proceedings and it becomes final and binding once adopted.

In the course of review proceedings, the Supreme Court may review final and binding judgments as an extraordinary legal remedy.

An appeal may be brought against a first instance judgment and against court orders where the CCP expressly provides for the possibility of appeal.If the appellant so requests, the court of second instance may also examine any order that the first instance court has addressed in its judgment, or any order that may be challenged within an appeal against the judgment – although not separately – together with the judgment itself.

An appeal may be lodged by a party or by any other person affected by the judgment, although the latter may challenge only the parts of the judgment that concern them.

Second instance proceedings shall be initiated by the appellant by filing his or her appeal in writing with the court of first instance within 15 days following the delivery of the written judgment.

The court of first instance examines the appeal on formal grounds and may decide to reject the appeal, to call upon the appellant party to remedy the deficiencies of the appeal or to send it to the second instance court if it finds that the appeal is acceptable.

Unless otherwise provided in the CCP, in proceedings of second instance, the provisions on proceedings of first instance shall apply, with the provision that the proceedings of second instance shall not be split into preparatory and evidentiary stage.

The Extent of Review in Appeal Proceedings

The CCP allows the court of second instance to review the lawfulness of the proceedings of the court of first instance. This may be done at the request of the party, and ex officio in exceptional cases.

Second, the court of second instance may also review the first instance judgment with respect to its compliance with substantive law, including revising the evidence and legal conclusions.

In summary, an appeal means that the competence of the court of first instance is, as a general rule, transferred in its entirety to the court of second instance, which remedies the infringement of rights within its competence.

Rules on New Facts and Evidence

As a general rule, new evidence and new facts may be presented only if the party submitting the appeal becomes aware of such facts or evidence after the issuance of the first instance decision.

Under the CCP, courts cannot impose discretionary conditions on granting an appeal.

The right to appeal is a statutory procedural right regulated exhaustively by the CCP, and its admissibility depends solely on legal conditions, not on the court’s discretion.

Setting Aside of Judgments

If any of the reasons for terminating the proceedings as set out in the CCP occurred during the first or second instance proceedings, the court of second instance shall adopt an order setting aside the first instance judgment, and terminate the proceedings. Where such a circumstance exists – for example, a lack of jurisdiction that cannot be remedied by the defendant’s voluntary participation in the proceedings – the court shall take it into account ex officio.

The court of second instance may set aside the first instance judgment with an order and instruct the court of first instance to conduct new proceedings and adopt a new decision if the first instance proceedings need to be repeated or supplemented due to a violation of the substantive rules of the first instance proceedings that affected the decision on the merits of the case, and remedying the situation in the second instance proceedings would be impossible or unreasonable.

This latter reason for setting aside the judgment can only be taken into account by the second instance court if the appellant has expressly requested it.

Upholding the Judgment

If the appeal is groundless, the court of second instance shall uphold the judgment.

Amendment of Judgments

If there is no reason for setting aside the judgment, but the first instance judgment is not correct with respect to the merits of the case, it shall be amended in whole or in part by the second instance court.

The Most Relevant Types of Litigation Costs

A duty is payable by the plaintiff at the time of the submission of the statement of claim. The general amount of the duty is defined by the Duties Act, and it depends on the amount in dispute. As of January 2025, Act XCIII of 1990 on Duties was amended and the rate of the duty for civil proceedings at first instance changed. As a result of the amendment, the duty is set differently in eight bands depending on the value in dispute. The upper limit of the duty (previously HUF1,500,000) was abolished. In practical terms, the amendment has significantly increased litigation costs, particularly in high-value cases.

Additional costs may arise in connection with the taking of evidence, the most substantial of which are typically the costs of expert opinions. These must be advanced by the party requesting the evidence.

Legal representation also gives rise to attorneys’ fees, which are advanced by the represented party.

The parties advance their costs upon their occurrence, as set out by the CCP and described in 4.6 Costs of Interim Applications/Motions. The allocation of all costs and duties is determined by the court in its judgment.

Allocation of Costs

On the basis of the CCP, the losing party pays all the costs of the winning party, and if the plaintiff’s claim has only been partially successful, the plaintiff is entitled to costs in proportion to his or her success. However, the court can order the payment of only a part of the costs if the winning party caused some of the costs, or the costs are exorbitant, inequitable or unjustified.

Challenging the Amount of the Costs to be Paid

The parties may challenge the part of the judgment relating to the determination and allocation of costs in the same manner as they may appeal against the substantive part of the judgment.

Litigation costs include all expenses necessarily incurred by a party during or prior to the proceedings that are causally connected with the assertion of the right in dispute. This includes any loss of earnings required by attendance before the court.

When awarding costs, the court therefore examines whether a given cost falls within the above definition and, if so, orders its reimbursement.

Lawyers’ fees form a part of litigation costs. Courts may lower the costs of lawyers’ fees to be reimbursed by the party. However, recently, the Supreme Court has adopted a precedent-establishing decision that the reduction by a court of the lawyer’s fee must be exceptional and applied only in exceptional cases.

If the court orders the losing party to pay the litigation costs and the payment is not made voluntarily within the deadline, default interest may accrue from the day following the due date of the payment, in accordance with the rules of the Hungarian Civil Code.

ADR methods are widely recognised under Hungarian law. Mediation, the procedures of Conciliation Bodies and those of the Permanent Arbitration Court are the most common forms. Conciliation Bodies assist consumers in resolving disputes with business entities.

As a consequence of the amendment increasing the amount of the procedural duty to be paid before initiating a civil court procedure, ADR procedures may become more frequent among disputing parties.

Mediation may form a part of court proceedings, and it is even compulsory in certain family law disputes.

This means that, in such cases, the judge may require the parties to jointly turn to a mediator and to attend the first mediation session, where they will hear the mediator’s introductory information. The court simultaneously suspends the hearing of the case. If, despite the court order, a party’s conduct or omission prevents the mediator’s invitation or the first session from taking place, the court may impose a monetary fine on that party.

The initiation and conduct of the mediation procedure nevertheless depend on the voluntary decision of the parties. Accordingly, no further obligation may be imposed on the parties beyond attending the first mediation session.

After the proceedings are resumed, the court may – upon the joint request of the parties – approve the agreement reached during the mediation as a judicial settlement. If the mediation does not lead to a result, the litigation continues, and the court decides on the disputed issues.

The conduct of mediators is supervised by the courts, while Conciliation Bodies and the Permanent Court of Arbitration are both attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Furthermore, the relevant statutory provisions establish the internal organisation thereof. Each of these ADR organisations has its own website – available in English and Hungarian – which provides information about their proceedings.

The national legislation governing international arbitration in Hungary is Act LX of 2017 on Arbitration (“Arbitration Act”), which is based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as amended in 2006.

Hungary ratified the New York Convention on 5 March 1962, and the New York Convention was enacted into Hungarian national law by Statutory Decree No 25 of 1962.

In addition, Hungary is a party to the Geneva Convention (European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration 1961) and the ICSID Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States).

Arbitral awards are enforced in accordance with the provisions of Act LIII of 1994 on Judicial Enforcement.

The scope of disputes that can be arbitrated under the Arbitration Act is broad. The Arbitration Act stipulates that disputes arising out of a consumer contract (except for disputes relating to fiduciary asset management contracts), proceedings regulated in Chapter 7 of the CCP (such as family law, public and private guardianship issues, as well as labour and enforcement disputes) and disputes falling within the scope of Act I of 2017 on Administrative Court Procedure are non-arbitrable.

Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards

An award rendered in an arbitral proceeding seated in Hungary may only be challenged by an application to set aside the award. This must be submitted to the Budapest Metropolitan Court within 60 days from the receipt of the award. The court may set aside the award only in cases stipulated by the Arbitration Act. An award can only be set aside in exceptional cases – eg, when the arbitration agreement was invalid, or one of the parties did not have legal capacity to act, or the award is contrary to Hungarian public policy.

Hungarian courts are not entitled to review the merits of an award.

Retrial Proceedings

The Arbitration Act introduced a new type of remedy against an arbitral award, namely a retrial proceeding, which can be initiated up to one year following the receipt of the arbitral award. The party requesting the retrial proceeding shall refer to facts or evidence that it could not submit in the initial proceeding for reasons that were not its own fault, provided that the submission of such facts or evidence could have resulted in a more beneficial award. The parties may opt out of the provisions of the Arbitration Act on retrial proceedings either in the arbitration agreement or at a later stage when determining the rules applicable to the conduct of the arbitral proceeding.

Enforcement Procedure

In case of arbitral proceedings seated outside of Hungary, the first step before the enforcement procedure is the recognition of the arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, if applicable in light of the reservation of reciprocity, or other multilateral or bilateral treaties.

According to the practice of Hungarian courts, the application for recognition may be made together with the request for enforcement, as the same court decides on both requests. However, the recognition must happen first, which might be a lengthy procedure, as the court’s decision can also be subject to review by the Curia. Once the award is recognised, it is deemed to be enforceable in the same way as domestic awards – ie, it is equivalent to the judgment of Hungarian courts.

Arbitral awards are enforced in accordance with the provisions of Act LIII of 1994 on Judicial Enforcement. The party requesting enforcement shall submit the original or a certified copy of the arbitration agreement.

Approach of the Courts

The approach of Hungarian courts towards the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is, in general, arbitration-friendly, and courts interpret the grounds for rejection very restrictively.

The CCP came into effect on 1 January 2018, and has even been comprehensively revised and amended since then. Thus, currently, there are no proposals for dispute resolution reforms in Hungary.

However, according to the already adopted amendment of the CCP, rules on online publicity of the court hearings will come into force on 1 January 2026, according to which members of the public may also participate in court hearings through an online platform.

Furthermore, from the same date, amendments to the CCP will modify the rules on judicial review (as an extraordinary remedy) so that, as a general rule, final decisions may no longer be subject to review by the Supreme Court.

These amendments are described in detail in the Hungary Trends and Developments article.

In Hungary, the main area of growth for commercial disputes lies in cases arising from complex contractual relationships, particularly in the fields of construction, real estate development, banking and shareholder disputes and financial services.

Digitalisation and e-commerce are also emerging sources of commercial disputes, especially concerning data protection, online transactions, and intellectual property rights.