Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Post-socialist Jurisdictions: Provisional Measures in Hungary

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Cross Border Study of Freezing Orders and Provisional Measures

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 281 Accesses

Abstract

The law on provisional measures is far from being the same in those countries of the former socialist-block that have acceded to the European Union during the first two decades of the 21st century. We cannot present all of them here, to a great extent because the related English (or other foreign language) literature is extremely scarce and typically limited to description of statutory law. Hungary has been chosen, not just because of language proficiency considerations, but also because Hungarian law represents the conservative end of the spectrum of provisional measure laws. In particular, because it does not know ex parte provisional measures, in stark contrast not only to English, French or US law but also to the laws of some of the countries of the region, like the Czech Republic.

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 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

    Hergottova (2009), at 160–169.

  2. 2.

    As opposed to that, at least as Hergottova claimed, “modestly increasing willingness of the courts to grant interim measures and the more extensive interpretation of courts of the central concept corollary to interim measures—the concept of ‘urgent interest’ or ‘urgent need’ […]” seems to have been detectable in the Czech Republic already in the first decades of the 21st century. Id. at 160.

  3. 3.

    Admittedly, the number of publications especially from non-English speaking jurisdictions that would have dealt with this query is very limited as well. Though exceptions exist, like the monograph of Weibel (2005), Enforcement of English Freezing Orders (“Mareva Injunctions”) in Switzerland (Helbing & Lichtenhahn Bruylant, Basel, Bruxelles 2005). (The author argues that Mareva Injunctions would be enforceable in Switzerland based on the Lugano Convention, though “[as the freezing order is not a final judgment […] in order to become effective upon enforcement, the order requires, in principle, protective measures under article 39 in addition to the mere declaration of its enforceability.”) Id. at 100.

  4. 4.

    See, e.g., Wopera (2001a, b) [Wopera Brussels Convention 2001], at 743–751. In the article, as Hungary was in process of taking over the acquie communautaire—including the Brussels Convention (1968) on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—the author analyzed the compatibility of Hungarian law on provisional measures with European standards. It reviewed the case law of the European Court of Justice (up to 2001) on provisional measures and concluded that Hungarian law satisfies the criteria set by the Court because, first, no independent provisional measure could be asked (i.e., may be asked only linked to a suit) and secondly, a provisional measure could be ordered only after having heard both parties. Id., at 750.

  5. 5.

    The Hungarian Competition Authority (“Gazdasági Versenyhivatal”) has issued a modest number of provisional measures in the last few years. Two were against organizers of so-called ‘consumer groups’ (“fogyasztói csoport”) prohibiting them to continue publication of their recruitment advertisements (see cases Vj-13/2010 and Vj-18/2010), one was about prohibiting a cable television company from applying its new tariff for year 1999 (see case Vj-175/1998/5), and another one ordering the revocation of a board decision within 15 days (see case Vj-112/2003/27). In yet another case, a provisional measure that was eventually revoked, the Authority prohibited the sale of the marketing of the Noni Tahiti juice (see case Vj 77/2005-12 for the issuance of the measures and decision Vj 177/2004 for its revocation). The texts of the decisions are available in Hungarian language only at the website of the Authority at http://gv.hu. The awarding of provisional measures—similarly to trademarks and copyrights—was incentivized by special provisions added (Section 72A applicable since 1 July 2014) to the 1996 Competition Act (“1996. évi LVII. Törvény a tisztességtelen piaci magatartás és a versenykorlátozás tilalmáról”).

  6. 6.

    Section 95 of the Trademark Act of 1997 (“1997. évi XI. Törvény a védjegyek és a földrajzi árujelzők oltalmáról”) allows issuance of provisional measures against usurpation of trademarks, with the Budapest-Capital Regional Court (“Fővárosi Törvényszék”) having exclusive jurisdiction, and within six months from the start of usurpation or within sixty days from learning about the usurpation.

  7. 7.

    Section 94A of the 1999 Copyright Act (“1999. évi LXXVI. Törvény a szerzői jogról”) contains very similar wording on provisional measures.

  8. 8.

    The special emphasis attributed to provisional measures in the context of these two areas of intellectual property law were to a great extent due to the TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and to international obligations taken by Hungary based on related conventions with the EU and the US. See Zsuzsa Wopera (2001) [Wopera History 2001], at 441–43.

  9. 9.

    Although Wopera’s formulation is more cautious, in essence she equally admits that in fact ex parte measures are lacking from the Hungarian legal system. As she put it: “[…] [E]x parte measures could be obtained only in cases of exceptional urgency, a possibility, however, that normally is not existent.” Wopera (2001a, b) [Wopera History 2001], at 750.

  10. 10.

    BH2003.110. (Supreme Court decision No.: Legf. Bír. Pf. I/A. 26.945/2001. sz.). The holding of this case clearly supports the claim that Hungarian law has limited ex parte measures to the barest minimum. It states, first, that “the summoning and giving the right to the parties to be heard is not required only in exceptionally urgent cases, and if [the properly summoned] party fails to appear at the hearing, or fails to act on a preordered day.” Secondly, according to the Supreme Court, the first instance court “should have awarded the provisional measure first by hearing the interested the parties at a joint hearing, and by taking into account the facts that may have changed in the meantime.”

  11. 11.

    See, e.g., Kontler (1999), Chapter VI—the Advent of Modernity and the Persistence of the Old Regime (1849–1918) et seq.

  12. 12.

    On the impact, for example, of Italian law on Hungarian legal system see Tajti (2014a, b), pp. 451–488.

  13. 13.

    Act of 1911 on Civil Procedure (1911. évi I. törvénycikk a polgári perrendtartásról.”) See also Zsuzsa Wopera (2001a, b) [Wopera History 2001], at 425–26.

  14. 14.

    See Emmer (1887). [The Référé-System and its Possible Application in Hungary].

  15. 15.

    Emmer (1887), at 48. Quoted also by Wopera (2001a, b), [Wopera History 2001], note 16, at 428.

  16. 16.

    A polgári perrendtartásról szóló 1952. évi III. törvény. [Hereinafter: 1952 Civil Procedure Code].

  17. 17.

    Wopera (2001a, b), [Wopera History 2001], at 439.

  18. 18.

    Wopera (2001a, b) [Wopera History 2001], at 440.

  19. 19.

    The government passed the Decision No. 2024/1980 (XII. 16) foreseeing the comprehensive reform of the 1952 Civil Procedure Code.

  20. 20.

    The TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) is an international agreement binding the members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Hungary ratified it by Parliamentary Decision No. 72/1994 (XII. 27.).

  21. 21.

    Wopera (2001a, b), [Wopera History 2001], at 441–42.

  22. 22.

    See, for example, the pretty recent case BH2017.93 involving a request to stop the infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark (concretely: prohibition to engrave on knives marketed by the defendant marks that closely resemble the trade mark the plaintiff lawfully held) within three days and of prohibition of future infringements.

  23. 23.

    According to § 184/A(3) and (6) of the [Civil] Court Enforcement Act (“1994. évi LIII. törvény a bírósági végrehajtásról”) the claimant must advance the costs of enforcement of provisional measures to the bailiff. However, once the bailiff has received the moneys, it has to deliver the decree within three days directly to the opponent. If the respondent refuses or fails to perform the bailiff is to turn back to the court for determining the method of enforcement and for imposition of monetary fines.

  24. 24.

    Oláh and Nagy (2009), pp. 216–315, in: Messmann and Tajti (2009).

  25. 25.

    Note that both devices are in Hungarian named as ‘measures’ (“intézkedés”) and are not differentiated as order (“utasítás, elrendelés”) and seizure (“zárlat”).

  26. 26.

    2016. évi CXXX. Törvény a polgári perrendtartásról. [Hereinafter: 2016 Civil Procedure Code].

  27. 27.

    § 630(1) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  28. 28.

    § 104(3) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  29. 29.

    § 104(4) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  30. 30.

    § 104(1) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  31. 31.

    § 105(2) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  32. 32.

    § 103(1) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  33. 33.

    § 103(1) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  34. 34.

    § 103(2) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  35. 35.

    § 104(2) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  36. 36.

    § 105(1) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  37. 37.

    § 103(2) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code.

  38. 38.

    As per § 105(4) of the 2016 Civil Procedure Code, unless revoked by a court decision earlier, the provisional measure remains in force until the finality of the first instance judgment brought on the merits.

  39. 39.

    Perhaps the most important recent development in Hungary as far as the position and role as a source of law of court decisions is concerned relates to the new tasks of the Hungarian Supreme Court named the Curia (“Kúria”). Namely, as per article 25(3) of the Basic Law (i.e., constitution) of Hungary enacted in 2011, Curia was entrusted with passing so-called ‘unifying decisions’ that have binding force on courts. As the Basic Law formulated: “the Curia shall ensure uniformity of the application of the law by the courts and shall take uniformity decisions which shall be binding on the courts.” Besides these the various Departments (“Kollégium”) of the Curia make as well Opinions on various legal issues, which—although not having a constitution-based binding force—have not only persuasive force but are applied whenever a case reaches the Curia. See, e.g., Lábady (2013), at 137.

    The text of the Basic Law in English is available electronically at http://www.kormany.hu/download/e/02/00000/The%20New%20Fundamental%20Law%20of%20Hungary.pdf. [Accessed on 15 Apr. 2018].

    See also the article of Ződi (2014), Precedenskövetés és Jogszabályértelmezés (Following Precedents and Interpretation of Law), in which he argues that although Hungarian law is not a ‘precedents-based legal system,’ there are some similarities with how higher courts work in common law systems. Paper available through the website of the Institute for Legal Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences at http://jog.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/Allam-%20es%20Jogtudomany/2014_3/2014-3-beliv-ZODI.pdf. [Accessed on 15 Apr. 2018].

  40. 40.

    For example, public procurement committees (“közbeszerzési döntőbizottság”) have discretionary powers also to issue provisional measures. See EBH2004.1091.

  41. 41.

    BH2003.110. See Section 3.2. and the concomitant notes in this part on Hungarian law above.

  42. 42.

    BH2002.441 (Legf. Bír. Pf. I/A. 26.108/2001). For brief description and critical analysis of the case see Messmann and Tajti (2009), volume I, at 249–257.

  43. 43.

    Id. at 255.

  44. 44.

    Id. at 255.

  45. 45.

    As Hoyle put it in his treatise on freezing and search orders: “Speed is required in applying for a Freezing Order to maintain the element of surprise. A without notice application is therefore vital, as it is hardly consistent with the fear of a defendant dissipating his assets if not restrained, to give him advance notice of the hearing.” Hoyle 2006, para 1.22, at 8. As a justification he then add that the number of applications to discharge Freezing Orders is ‘comparatively rare.’ Id.

  46. 46.

    BH2008.93.

  47. 47.

    Presently in Hungary two types of warehouses are in widespread use: the public (terminal) and field (or artificial) warehouses. While the first are the paradigm warehousing forms known all over the world, variants of field (artificial) warehouses are peculiarities only of a few legal systems. The key differences between the two is that while in case of public warehouses (which are typically located in industrial centers) it is the debtor (e.g., a farmer or producer of canned products) who transports his goods to the warehouse, in case of field warehouses it is the warehousing company that goes to the premises of the debtor, where it erects an ‘artificial’ warehouse. Consequently, in case of field warehouses the debtor does not have to transports his goods. If the warehoused goods are meant to be processed, they would be in such case close to the production line of the debtor. While field warehousing was a major business form and security device in the United States roughly until the 1960s, they became (in somewhat different form than in the US) extremely popular in Hungary roughly in the 21st century. See Tajti T. (2014), [Field Warehousing], at 185–235.

  48. 48.

    BH2003.337.

  49. 49.

    BH2002.315.

  50. 50.

    EBD2016.M18.

  51. 51.

    The exchange rate of the Hungarian Forint (HUF) in the first half of 2017 fluctuated between 303 to 316 HUF for a Euro. Thus, five million HUF would be around 16,000 Euros.

  52. 52.

    BH2000.406.

  53. 53.

    BH2016.339.

  54. 54.

    Id.

  55. 55.

    As per Section 52 of the Civil Procedure Act 2016, the maximum monetary fines are one-million HUF, which in case of minors may not exceed three-hundred-thousand HUF. These may not be changed to prison based on explicit provision of the Act and in principle the value of fine may not exceed the value of the claim either (Section 52(2)).

  56. 56.

    § 219 of the Civil Procedure Act 2016.

  57. 57.

    § 236 of the Civil Procedure Act 2016.

  58. 58.

    § 5(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2016.

  59. 59.

    Act No. LIII. of 1994 on Civil Court Enforcement (as amended) (1994. évi LIII. törvény a bírósági végrehajtásról).

  60. 60.

    Messmann and Tajti (2009), at 251.

References

EU Legislation

  • Brussels Convention (1968) On jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Official Journal L 299, 31/12/1972 P. 0032–0042)

    Google Scholar 

Hungarian Law

  • Act of 1911 on Civil Procedure (1911. évi I. törvénycikk a polgári perrendtartásról”)

    Google Scholar 

  • [Civil] Court Enforcement Act of 1994 (“1994. évi LIII. törvény a bírósági végrehajtásról”)

    Google Scholar 

  • Civil Procedure Code of 1952 (“A polgári perrendtartásról szóló 1952. évi III. Törvény”)

    Google Scholar 

  • Civil Procedure Code of 2016 (2016. évi CXXX. Törvény a polgári perrendtartásról

    Google Scholar 

  • Competition Act of 1996 (“1996. évi LVII. törvény a tisztességtelen piaci magatartás és a versenykorlátozás tilalmáról”)

    Google Scholar 

  • Copyright Act of 1999 (“1999. évi LXXVI. törvény a szerzői jogról”)

    Google Scholar 

  • [Governmental] Decision No. 2024/1980 (XII. 16) foreseeing the comprehensive reform of the 1952 Civil Procedure Code

    Google Scholar 

  • Trademark Act of 1997 (“1997. évi XI. törvény a védjegyek és a földrajzi árujelzők oltalmáról”)

    Google Scholar 

International Law

  • World Trade Organization (WTO), TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). The TRIPS Agreement is Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco on 15 Apr 1994

    Google Scholar 

Books: In English Language

  • Hergottova A (2009) Enforcement of contracts in the Czech Republic. In: Messmann S, Tajti T (eds) The case law of Central and Eastern Europe—Enforcement of Contracts, vol I. European University Press, Bochum-Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle MSW (2006) Freezing and search orders, 4th edn. Informa-London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontler L (1999) Millennium in Central Europe—A history of Hungary. Atlantisz Publishing House, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Messmann S, Tajti T (2009) The case law of Central and Eastern Europe—Enforcement of Contracts. European University Press, Bochum-Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Oláh Zs. and Nagy I. Cs. (2009), Enforcement of Contracts in Hungary, in: Messmann S. & Tajti T., the Case Law of Central and Eastern Europe - Enforcement of Contracts, vol. I. European University Press, Bochum-Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibel T (2005) Enforcement of English freezing orders (“Mareva Injunctions”) in Switzerland. Helbing & Lichtenhahn Bruylant, Basel-Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

Books: In Hungarian Language

  • Emmer K (1887) A Référé-rendszer s magyar alkalmazása [The Référé-System and its [Possible] Application in Hungary]. Franklin Társulat, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Lábady T (2013) A magánjog általános tana. Szent István Társulat, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

Articles: In English Language

  • Tajti T (2014) Italian law in Hungary. In: Bussani M (eds) Il Diritto Italiano in Europa (1861–2014)—Scienza, giurisprudenza, legislazione, Edition: Anno 2014, vol V. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiana

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajti T (2014) The resurrection of fields warehousing—the Booming Hungarian field warehousing sector, the incomplete english narrative and the Unexplored field warehousing law of the United States, Acta Juridica Hungarica 55(3):185–235. [Referred to as: Field Warehousing]

    Google Scholar 

Articles: In Hungarian Language

  • Ződi Zs (2014) Precedenskövetés és Jogszabályértelmezés (Following/Adherence to Precedents and Interpretation of Law). In the Hungarian language law review Állam és Jogtudomány vol LX, No 3, pp 60–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Wopera Zs (2001) Az ideiglenes intézkedések a Brüsszeli Egyezmény 24. cikkére vonatkozó európai bírósági joggyarkorlat tükrében. Magyar Jog, vol 2001, No 12, pp 743–751. [Referred to as: Wopera Brussels Convention 2001]

    Google Scholar 

  • Wopera Zs (2001) Az ideiglenes intézkedés szabályozásának története Magyarországon 1868-tól a polgári perrendtartás VI. Novellájának megalkotásáig. Section Juridica et Politica, Miskolc, Tomus XIX, pp 423–444 [Referred to as: Wopera History 2001]

    Google Scholar 

Court and Administrative Agency Cases: Hungary

Court and administrative agency cases: Courts

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Studies, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

    Tibor Tajti

  2. Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

    Peter Iglikowski

Authors
  1. Tibor Tajti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Iglikowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tibor Tajti .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tajti, T., Iglikowski, P. (2018). Post-socialist Jurisdictions: Provisional Measures in Hungary. In: A Cross Border Study of Freezing Orders and Provisional Measures. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94349-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94349-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94348-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94349-7

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation