Blog » ARBITRATION IN HUNGARY
ARBITRATION IN HUNGARY
06 February 2018
The new Hungarian Arbitration Act, entered into force on 1st January 2018 has reshaped the institutional landscape of Hungarian arbitration, and introduced some noteworthy changes in arbitral proceedings in order to increase the international competitiveness of Hungarian arbitration. We sum up the most important changes in this article.
The New Arbitration Act
In Hungary domestic and international commercial arbitration is governed by Act LX of 2017 on arbitration, effective from 1st January 2018 (“New Arbitration Act”), which repealed the former Act LXXI on Arbitration.
The New Arbitration Act was adopted in the framework of a major legislative modification regarding Hungarian civil law, which included the reform of Civil Procedure Code, and International Private Law Act, too both of them entered into force on 1st January 2018. Furthermore, the incorporation of the changes of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”) revised in 2006 was another reason to pass a new arbitration law in Hungary.
The New Arbitration Act introduced a major institutional reform, by merging 3 (three) former distinct arbitration institutions.
From 1st January 2018, the Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce, the Arbitration Court of Money and Capital Markets and Arbitration Court of Energy merged into the Permanent Commercial Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce.
The Permanent Arbitration Court for Sport and Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Agricultural Chamber continues to operate as distinct arbitration institutions.
Formal validity of Arbitration Agreement
The New Arbitration Act, expressly provides that a valid arbitration agreement can be concluded via e-mail, or other electronic communication, even if the parties do not use electronic signatures.
This is a very important step ahead in the 21st century, given that Hungarian states courts interpret the concept of electronic communication narrowly, requiring the use of electronic signature by the parties, which is not common in commercial transactions.
Considering that states courts have the last word when the question of formal validity of an arbitration agreement arises in a setting aside procedure, this provision of the new law reflects the pro-arbitration approach of the Hungarian legislator.
Preliminary orders and interim measures
When it comes to preliminary orders and interim measures, the New Arbitration Act reflects the changes introduced by the 2006 revision of the Model Law and contains detailed provisions in this subject.
Interim measures may be requested in order to i) preserve the status quo ii) avoid causing harm, or avoid prejudice to the arbitral procedure iii) preserve assets iv) preserve evidences. The party seeking interim measure shall make it likely that the measure is proportional and that there is reasonable chance of success of his claim.
Preliminary orders can be requested in order to prevent the other party to frustrate the interim measure requested, and if granted remains in force for no more than 20 days.
While requests for interim measures shall be disclosed to the other party, preliminary orders can be issued on “ex parte” basis, without the prior hearing of other party. Interim measures can be enforced the same way as arbitral awards, however a preliminary order binds only the other party in the framework of the arbitration procedure, and it can not be subject of judicial enforcement.
Retrial as new remedy
From procedural point of view, one of the most important novelty of the New Arbitration Act is the retrial, which is a new type of remedy against arbitral awards.
The party can request retrial of the case within 1 (one) year from the notification of the award, if there is a fact or evidence that he was unable to present in the proceedings at no fault to him, and it could have resulted an award more favorable for him.
In case the above conditions are met, the tribunal reopens the case and delivers a new award, if necessary.
It must be stressed that parties may opt-out from the new retrial regime, by expressly excluding the possibility of retrial in their arbitration agreement.
Increased Arbitrator liability
The New Arbitration Act introduces the civil liability of arbitrators, which was not regulated under the former legislation. The arbitrator’s liability is limited by the Rules of Procedures of the Permanent Commercial Arbitration Court to damage caused intentionally or by gross negligence.
Furthermore, in case the arbitral award is annulled by the state courts in a setting aside procedure, the New Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal is not entitled to remuneration at all.
Given that nearly 25 years have passed after the entering into force of the former Hungarian law on arbitration, it was time to reflect the changes in such a long period in a new piece of legislation. We hope that the New Arbitration Act will help to achieve the main objective of the Hungarian legislator, and it will increase the international competitiveness of Hungarian arbitration.
IS THE JUDGE BIASED BECAUSE OF UNFAVOURABLE JUDGMENT IN OTHER CASE?
Can a judge be disqualified from deciding the legal dispute on the grounds of bias if he has delivered a judgment unfavourable to the plaintiff in another case? Can a court be biased if the plaintiff has "challenged" a previous decision of the court before the European Court of Human Rights? In this article, we answer these questions by analysing a recent judgment of the Hungarian Supreme Court.Read more »
CAN INCOMPATIBLE WORKPLACE BEHAVIOUR BE A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL IN HUNGARY?
Refusal of employer 's instructions, unjustified absence, intentional damage: some cases where the justification for dismissing an employee is relatively easy to determine. What happens, however, if the employee does not commit a severe breach of duty similar to the one above, but his or her colleagues consider him incompatible, with whom it is impossible to cooperate, or even afraid of him or her. Can dismissal be justified by behaviour that is incompatible with others and creates disharmony in the working environment? In our article, we seek the answer to this question in the light of Hungarian judicial practice.Read more »
CAN A JUDICIAL ERROR CREATE HUNGARIAN JURISDICTION DESPITE A PLACE OF PERFORMANCE ABROAD?
Can a defendant, domiciled abroad, be sued in Hungary under the Brussels I Regulation in the event of defective performance of an international sales contract if the place of performance is abroad? Can the jurisdiction of a Hungarian court be established based on the fact that the lower court expressly established its jurisdiction at the beginning of the litigation? How is the EXW clause to be interpreted within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation? In our article, we analyse the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Hungary.Read more »