Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hungary: Towards More Efficient Preparatory Proceedings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings

Abstract

The Hungarian rules of civil procedure developed in the streamline of German and Austrian models at the beginning of the twentieth century and were influenced by the Soviet solutions in the second half of the century. Since the change of the regime in 1989, the legislator has made several attempts to concentrate the procedure and hear cases within a reasonable time, the results of which have been partly successfully. Hungarian civil procedure, in first instance, may not be divided into an efficient preparatory stage and a concentrated main hearing. Written preparation—apart from the formal examination of the statement of claim—is optional. It is shaped by the judge’s attitude and the types of the cases whether the court calls the parties upon to prepare the case through correspondence. The success of a written preparation is dependent on the parties’ willingness to actively participate therein. No real preclusion is attached to this stage of the procedure. Due to the lack of written preparation, the first hearing functions as a preparatory hearing and, as a result, a great proportion of the cases are adjourned. One of the aims of the pre-action negotiations prescribed by the law would be also to prepare the case for hearing in case amicable settlement fails; nevertheless, in practice, it falls short of the expectations of the legislator. The concept of the new code of civil procedure urges a caesura between the preparatory and the main hearing stage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See a similar summary on historical development: Varga (2008), pp. 276–280.

  2. 2.

    Provisorische Civilprozessordung (1852).

  3. 3.

    Fodor (1916), p. 235.

  4. 4.

    This act regulated litigation of claims of miner subject matter value.

  5. 5.

    Two academics were delegated to study the foreign codes. Kornél Emmer prepared a proposal based on the French system, while Sándor Plósz prepared a proposal following the German model.

  6. 6.

    See Rechberger (2012), pp. 1–13.

  7. 7.

    The process of codification started in this field of law, too, but enacting the code of private law failed, therefore, judges followed the bill filed with the Parliament in 1928. The first code of civil law was passed in 1959 (came into force on 1 May 1960), so already under the soviet regime. It was modified several times, especially after the change to the regime. The code in force now was passed in 2013 (Act V of 2013).

  8. 8.

    Magyary (1939), p. 343.

  9. 9.

    Beck and Névai (eds) (1959), p. 229.

  10. 10.

    Magyary (1939), p. 377.

  11. 11.

    Varga (2008), pp. 278–280, Kengyel (2014), pp. 61–63.

  12. 12.

    Section 2(1) of the HCCP.

  13. 13.

    Kengyel (2014), p. 62.

  14. 14.

    Kengyel (2014), p. 63.

  15. 15.

    Kengyel (2014), p. 62.

  16. 16.

    Varga (2008), p. 279.

  17. 17.

    Varga (2008), p. 279.

  18. 18.

    Decision of the Government of 1267/2013 (V. 17).

  19. 19.

    Bírósági Határozatok (BH, Judicial Decisions) 2012.169.

  20. 20.

    Bírósági Döntések Tára (BDT, Collection of Court Decisions) 2013.2866; BDT 2008.1823; BDT 2007.1543; BH 2000.20; So called surprise judgments are very much criticised in legal practice. The Concept of the new Code of Civil Procedure suggests a similar system to the German ZPO in order to prevent surprise decisions (p 9), that is ‘substantive or material case management’ where the judge seeks clarification and provide feedback for the parties as to the essence of the dispute.

  21. 21.

    Kengyel (2014), p. 83, Kiss (2014), pp. 104–105.

  22. 22.

    Kengyel (2014), p. 248.

  23. 23.

    This was the effect of the soviet ideology on the Hungarian civil procedure. In the socialist legal literature the general and firm belief was that the hearing aimed at founding the lawsuit is superfluous and makes the procedure longer and more complicated than a single hearing system. [Éless (2013), pp. 26–27, Kengyel (2014), p. 245] Nevertheless, now there is an opinion that the recent system is a single-divided one. [Éless and Ébner (2014), p. 383].

  24. 24.

    Kengyel (2014), p. 239.

  25. 25.

    As to legal consequences of the defence on the merits see: Kengyel (2014), p. 260, Kiss (2014), pp. 545–546, Szabó (2013), pp. 266–267.

  26. 26.

    In other particular procedures or matters special pre-action processes may also occur, either obligatory or optional, such as in divorce matters or labour disputes, etc. This study, however, does not concern these special provisions, neither in legal history, nor the rules in effect now.

  27. 27.

    Act XXX of 2008, came into force on 1 January 2009.

  28. 28.

    Act LXVIII of 2009.

  29. 29.

    Act LIX of 2010.

  30. 30.

    As to critics see: Szalai (2010), pp. 235–245.

  31. 31.

    See the reasons for the bill of Act LIX of 2010 (http://www.parlament.hu/irom39/00351/00351-0006.pdf. Accessed 7 Aug 2015).

  32. 32.

    A set of special rules are applicable to actions where the sum in dispute exceeds HUF 400 million (cc. EUR 1.3 million). These cases are called actions with ‘outstanding significance’ (Sections 386/A-386/U).

  33. 33.

    Kengyel (2014), p. 246.

  34. 34.

    Nagy (2008), p. 306.

  35. 35.

    Kiss (2014), p. 515; Oszovits (2013), p. 229.

  36. 36.

    Imregh (2008), pp. 785–794.

  37. 37.

    Kengyel (2014), p. 246, Nagy (2008), p. 329.

  38. 38.

    Section 124 (3)–(4).

  39. 39.

    Section 141 (3)–(5) In Section 141 (2)—maybe a little bit surprisingly—the HCCP uses the expression ‘further preparation of the litigation”.

  40. 40.

    Section 124 (4) point (e).

  41. 41.

    In some cases it is excluded (e.g. if an order for payment procedure has transformed to a civil action), while in others it is mandatory (in a special type of high priority cases).

  42. 42.

    There was a short period of time when videoconference was planned to be introduced [see Section 1(4) of Act LXVIII of 2009], but finally it did not come realty (probably because of financial reasons).

  43. 43.

    See Act LXVIII of 2009 and Act LIX of 2010.

  44. 44.

    The list of the bars can be found in Section 130 (1) of the HCCP.

  45. 45.

    Kiss (2014), p. 527, Kengyel (2014), p. 254.

  46. 46.

    See Section 126 of the HCCP.

  47. 47.

    This is one of the reasons why dispensing with an oral hearing in judicial review cases is not a successful resolution, either.

  48. 48.

    Part Six of the HCCP (Sections 387–394/A).

  49. 49.

    Section 146 of the HCCP.

  50. 50.

    Section 391/A of the HCCP.

  51. 51.

    Sections 147-147/A of the HCCP.

  52. 52.

    Section 391/B of the HCCP.

  53. 53.

    See e.g.: A bizonyításra vonatkozó tájékoztatási kötelezettség a polgári perben , 1/2009. (VI.24.) PK vélemény a Polgári perrendtartás tájékoztatási kötelezettségre vonatkozó szabályainak alkalmazásával kapcsolatos egyes kérdésekről. 1/2014. (VI. 30.) PK vélemény az ítélet hatályon kívül helyezésével kapcsolatos egyes kérdésekről

  54. 54.

    Section 389 of the HCCP.

  55. 55.

    Slovenia has a similar system, see Sect. 5.4.2.

  56. 56.

    This expression is borrowed from Éless (2013).

  57. 57.

    BDT 2010.2246; BDT 2008.1895; BDT 2007.1694; BDT 2004.952; BDT 2001.386; BDT 2000.177; BDT 2000.176; BDT 2000.135; BDT 1999.69; BH 2010.125; BH 2003.509; BH 2003.204; BH 2002.149; BH 2002.79; BH 2001.328, etc.

  58. 58.

    See Összefoglaló vélemény—A perorvoslati bíróságok hatályon kívül helyezési gyakorlata. (A másodfokú és felülvizsgálati bíróság kasszációs jogköre).

  59. 59.

    Act LV of 2002. On mediation in Hungary see: ‘Rebooting’ the Mediation Directive: Assessing the Limited Impact of its Implementation and Proposing Measures to Increase the Number of Mediations in the EU.

  60. 60.

    As Hungary is an EU member, the domestic law must implement the Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.

  61. 61.

    Act CXVII of 2012.

  62. 62.

    Act CCLII of 2013.

  63. 63.

    This requirement flows from EU law, especially that ordinary mediation may not be less advantageous than court-connected mediation.

  64. 64.

    See Decree 63 of 2009 (XII.17) of the Minister of Justice and Law Enforcement.

  65. 65.

    Ninety per cent, 70 % or 50 % of the fees is remitted depending on not only when settlement is reached but also on how the lawsuit is finished, so whether on the basis of the settlement the claimant drops the claim, the defendant admits the claim, the parties mutually require the court to terminate the procedure or the procedure ceases after three months of intermission.

  66. 66.

    As to settlements and also mediation see: Gyekiczky (2010), pp. 7–22.

  67. 67.

    Only the cogens norms shall be taken into account, as parties can deviate from dispositive legal rules. It is also very important that the agreement must be enforceable and for this reason definite. (BH 1993.364).

  68. 68.

    Supreme Court Pf.III.21 366/1992.

  69. 69.

    See the Concept of the new Code of Civil Procedure pp. 11–16.

  70. 70.

    Ibid. p. 12.

  71. 71.

    Éless (2013), pp. 25–26; Éless and Döme (2014), pp. 421–429.

References

  • 1/2009 (VI.24.) PK vélemény a Polgári perrendtartás tájékoztatási kötelezettségre vonatkozó szabályainak alkalmazásával kapcsolatos egyes kérdésekről. http://www.lb.hu/hu/kollvel/12009-vi24-pk-velemeny-polgari-perrendtartas-tajekoztatasi-kotelezettsegre-vonatkozo. Accessed 25 November 2015

  • 1/2014 (VI. 30) (2015) PK vélemény az ítélet hatályon kívül helyezésével kapcsolatos egyes kérdésekről. http://www.lb.hu/hu/kollvel/12014-vi-30-pk-velemeny-az-itelet-hatalyon-kivul-helyezesevel-kapcsolatos-egyes-kerdesekrol. Accessed 25 Nov 2015

  • A bizonyításra vonatkozó tájékoztatási kötelezettség a polgári perben (proposal discussed by the Civil Collegium of the Regional Court of Appeal of the Capital on 1 December 2008). http://fovarosiitelotabla.birosag.hu/sites/default/files/field_attachment/2008_-_a_bizonyitasra_vonatkozo_tajekoztatasi_kotelezettseg_a_polgari_perben.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2015

  • Az új polgári perrendtartás koncepciója - A Kormány 2015. január 14. Napján megtartott ülésén elfogadott Koncepció (Concept of the new Code of Civil Procedure approved by the government on 14 January 2015) http://www.kormany.hu/download/f/ca/30000/20150128%20Az%20%C3%BAj%20polg%C3%A1ri%20perrendtart%C3%A1s%20koncepci%C3%B3ja.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2015

  • Beck S, Névai L (eds) (1959) Magyar polgári eljárásjog. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Éless T (2013) A kereset nyilvánvaló megalapozatlansága. In: Varga I (ed) Codificatio processualis civilis – Studia in Honorem Németh János II. ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, Budapest, pp 19–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Éless T, Döme A (2014) A keresetváltoztatás kérdéséhez. In: Németh J, Varga I (eds) Egy új polgári perrendtartás alapjai. HVG-ORAC, Budapest, pp 417–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Éless T, Ébner V (2014) A percezúra – az érdemi tárgyalás előkészítése. In: Németh J, Varga I (eds) Egy új polgári perrendtartás alapjai. HVG-ORAC, Budapest, pp 377–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor Á (1916) Polgári peres eljárásunk története az utolsó ötven esztendőben. In: Jogi Dolgozatok. A Jogtudományi Közlöny ötven éves fennállásának emlékére. Franklin Társulat, Budapest, pp 1865–1915

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyekiczky T (2010) A mediációról. Gondolat Kiadó, Budapest, pp 7–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Imregh G (2008) Gondolatok az előkészítésről. Magyar Jog 2008(11):785–794

    Google Scholar 

  • Kengyel M (2014) Magyar polgári eljárásjog. Osiris, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss D (2014) A polgári per titkai. HVG-ORAC, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Magyary G (1939) Magyar polgári perjog, 3rd edn. Franklin Társulat, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy A (2008) Eljárás az elsőfokú bíróság előtt. In: Zs W (ed) Polgári perjog – Általános rész. Complex, Budapest, pp 287–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Összefoglaló vélemény – A perorvoslati bíróságok hatályon kívül helyezési gyakorlata. (A másodfokú és felülvizsgálati bíróság kasszációs jogköre) http://www.lb.hu/sites/default/files/joggyak/osszefoglvelemeny.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2015

  • Oszovits A (2013) Keresetindítás és a tárgyalás előkészítése. In: Osztovits A (ed) Polgári eljárásjog I. – A polgári per általános szabályai. HVG-ORAC, Budapest, pp 175–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechberger W (2012) Az osztrák polgári perrendtartás – mintául szolgált-e az 1911. évi magyar perrendtartás számára? In: Harsági V (ed) Közép-európai polgári perjogi reformok és kodifikációk az elmúlt negyedszázadban – Tradíció és megújulás. HVG-ORAC, Budapest, pp 19–40

    Google Scholar 

  • ‘Rebooting’ the Mediation Directive: Assessing the Limited Impact of its Implementation and Proposing Measures to Increase the Number of Mediations in the EU, pp 90–93. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/493042/IPOL-JURI_ET(2014)493042_EN.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2015

  • Szabó I (2013) Tárgyalás és határozatok. In: Osztovits A (ed) Polgári ejárásjog I. – A polgári per általános szabályai. HVG-ORAC, Budapest, pp 236–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Szalai P (2010) Kritikai észrevételek a polgári perrendtartás legújabb módosításához. In: Csöndes M, Nemessányi Z (eds) Merre tart a magyar civilisztikai jogalkotás a XXI. század elején? Pécs, pp 235–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Varga I (2008) Foreign influences on Hungarian civil procedure. In: Deguchi M, Storme M (eds) The reception and transmission of civil procedural law in the global society. Legislative and legal educational assistance to other countries in procedural law. Maklu, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn-Kyoto, pp 275–289

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Public Service, 2 Ludovika sqr, 1083, Budapest, Hungary

    Adél Köblös

Authors
  1. Adél Köblös
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adél Köblös .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law,Psychology and Social Work, University of Örebro, Örebro, Sweden

    Laura Ervo

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

    Anna Nylund

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Köblös, A. (2016). Hungary: Towards More Efficient Preparatory Proceedings. In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29325-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29325-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29323-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29325-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation