Whether a valid, but inapplicable choice-of-court clause can be regarded as a “tacit” jurisdiction agreement? Is it sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the courts of a member state under the Brussels I Regulation? We address the above question on the basis of a judgment of the Hungarian Supreme Court delivered in a cross-border dispute between a Hungarian claimant and a Romanian defendant.
In the first part of our article, we explained that in case of outsourcing of tasks to an external company, in addition to its benefits, a special labour law rule, the so called “transfer of employment” must also be taken into account. We highlighted that the employer must be cautious if it is possible that material or human resources will be taken over by the external company, as it is possible that special labour law rules will come into effect due to the takeover of resources. In this article, we examine the aspects of takeover based on the relevant Hungarian and EU case law.
In business, it often happens that the parties enter into a contract with a choice of court agreement for eventual legal disputes and then, years or even decades later, the legal dispute occurs. What is the effect of changes that have occurred in legislation on the choice of court agreement? Will the applicability of the choice of court agreement be decided according to the rules in force at the time of the conclusion of the contract or those applicable when the lawsuit was initiated? A recent decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court allows for an analysis of these questions.(1)
Based on the basic principle of international civil litigation, a person can usually be sued only in the courts of his or her own country. However, this makes it very difficult for a claimant who wants to enforce his rights against several defendants living in different countries. Can the jurisdiction of Hungarian courts existing in respect of a domestic defendant (the so-called anchor defendant) be extended to other, foreign defendants as well? In this article, we analyse the practical application of the new rules entered into force in 2018, based on a recent decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court.
A common reason for the failure of debt recovery is that the debtor company's managing director, during years of legal proceedings, takes the company's assets and then bankrupts the company. In such cases, creditors can start a special court procedure against the director of the company and seek compensation for their outstanding claims. In our article, we examine based on a recent court decision, how can the creditors, who are usually “out in the dark” prove the depletion of the company's assets and other breaches by the director.
After several condemnations from the European Parliament, the Hungarian legislature has introduced a new legal remedy to get financial compensation from the state in the case of excessively long civil litigations, so that the injured parties will not need to apply to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for redress. This article summarises the main features of this new remedy and its potential effects on litigations in Hungary.
Under what conditions can a minority shareholder sue the managing director on behalf of the company if the majority of shareholders do not support the motion? Should these conditions be interpreted restrictively or broadly? This article analyses the above questions in the context of a recent Supreme Court judgment.
This article analyses a recent Supreme Court decision(1) and seeks to answer the following questions: - Can a defendant which is domiciled abroad be sued in Hungary under the EU Brussels Recast Regulation (1215/2012/EU) 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 a lower court expressly established its jurisdiction at the beginning of the litigation? - How is the Ex Works (EXW) clause to be interpreted within the meaning of the EU Brussels I Regulation?
Although efforts are being made around the world to curb the spread of the epidemic, it can already be seen that entire sectors of the economy have to face a difficult situation, which is also affecting companies ’contracts. For example, many businesses request the reduction of the rent for the premises they lease for business, due to the coronavirus situation. The question arises as to whether there is another option for amendment if the parties fail to reach a mutual agreement.
Has your debtor just gone bankrupt? Has he alienated his assets to a foreign company before that? When can you sue the latter in your home country for concealment of assets to avoid an expensive foreign litigation? In its judgment in the Feniks case the Court of Justice of the European Union, answers the above question, which we summarise in our article.