Blog » NO RETROACTIVE JUSTICE! Decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court in our client’s case
NO RETROACTIVE JUSTICE! Decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court in our client’s case
30 May 2017
In a fast-changing legal environment like Hungary, you should always check whether your legal situation has been changed by reason of a new legislation, because courts tend to decide based on current legal environment if nobody invokes the principle of prohibition of retroactive justice.
Our client, a limited liability company incorporated in Hungary, held by UK private investors, signed a long-term lease contract as lessee for agricultural lands in Western Hungary back in 2009.
In 2012-2013 the Hungarian Parliament passed new acts in the framework of a nationwide agricultural reform. One of the modifications permitted the termination of lease contracts in case of change of ownership, in case the new owner wants to cultivate the lands himself.
In the meantime, the owner of the lands leased by our client has been changed in 2013, and the new owner terminated our client’s contracts by notice, referring to the new legislation entering into force that year.
At the beginning, the local courts held that the lease contract termination by the new owner was lawful based on the new legislation, and the client lost the first round of the litigation. Then he came to us, so that we help him to reverse the case.
It was clear for us, that the legal security and the prohibition of retroactive legislation is a constitutional principle, and it can be disregarded only in exceptional cases. In other words, once the game begins the rules of the game cannot be changed without serious reasons.
When examining the details of the agricultural reform and its execution, we realized that the executive measures of the new law have not provided expressly that the new legislation relied upon by the owner should be applied to contracts concluded before.
In other words, our client, who signed his contract in a given legal environment in 2009, and acquired his rights on the rules applicable that time, must be protected from future changes, even if a new owner enters into the lease contract as lessor.
The only problem was that the client failed to invoke the prohibition of retroactive justice at the beginning of the litigation, and the courts applied the subsequent rules automatically.
We started to defend our client with this legal principle and finally, it was accepted by not only the local courts, but the Hungarian Supreme Court as well, who delivered its judgment favoring our client in the framework of a special remedy, called “review procedure”.
Even if prohibition of retroactive justice is a basic principle, as long as it is not invoked expressly by any of the parties in a litigation, courts tend to deliver judgments based on the current legal environment. However, it is never too late to try changing the opinion of a judge, even if he already based his decision on his different legal opinion.
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 »