Maybe there is one thing that is more annoying than the award-debtor concealing his assets after successful arbitral proceedings: if the latter even concludes a choice-of-court agreement, trying to further frustrate the award-enforcement. But does such a jurisdiction clause extend to the non-signatory award-creditor? In this short article, we analyse the recent decision of a Hungarian Appellate court, delivered under the Brussels Ibis Regulation, in which the court had to rule on the personal scope of a jurisdiction clause.
Business life gives birth to a variety of contracts which are not regulated by the Civil Codes in continental jurisdictions. In cases the parties conclude such a so-called “atypical contract”, it is for the judge to decide whether the default rules of a nominated contract regulated by the Civil Code can be applied in gap-filling function. A recent decision of a Hungarian appellate court in a case, where our law firm represented the defendant tells, whether a work force supplier can invoke the rules of the agency contract to support his damage claim under Hungarian law. This landmark decision has been published in the prestigious Hungarian law journal, the Collection of Court Decisions.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of a British Academy of Film and Television Arts award-winning composer who sued a French company in Hungary because of the illegal use of his music in video games distributed on online platforms. Besides the issue of the Hungarian courts' jurisdiction on a matter involving a foreign defendant and international copyright infringements, the other issue was whether the original licence granted by the claimant covered these different modes of exploitation.
In the recent past, the Court of Justice of the European Union had to deal with the question whether an accommodation operator registered to Booking.com can sue the latter because of abuse of dominant position. In this short article we analyse the background of the case and the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Can parties' conduct during litigation amount to an implied choice-of-law agreement based on EU Regulation 593/2008 (Rome I Regulation)? This article analyses a recent Supreme Court judgment concerning this question.(1)
In the emergency situation due to COVID-19 the rules of the civil litigation were modified: the most important change was that courts did not held court hearings at all or only through electronic telecommunication channels. Because of the moderation of the epidemic, from 1st June 2020 the civil litigations can return to “normality” with a few slight changes. In our short article we summarize the new rules.
The coronavirus and the state of emergency ordered by the Hungarian government to fight this epidemic affects every part of our life. Civil and business litigations are not exceptions either. In our short article we summarize what are the most relevant changes in the ongoing and envisaged court procedures in Hungary.
How to balance between the employer’s business interests and the employee’s right to freedom of expression? Can the employer restrict the employee’s freedom of expression and terminate his employment because of a blogpost? The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) addressed these questions in his fresh judgement brought in the case of a Hungarian applicant. In this short article we summarize the facts of the case and the findings of the Court.
The European Court of Human Rights usually condemns Hungary because of too slow legal proceedings, breaching the fair trial principle as human right. However, the latest judgment of the Court, condemning Hungary was delivered because of a too fast judicial decision.
On 1st January 2018 a new Civil Procedure Code enters into force in Hungary with the principal aim to speed up civil & business litigations, through divided litigation structure and important restrictions for the litigants. In this short article we collected the 5 most important changes which will affect you if you start a litigation in Hungary from 2018.