Blog » SETTING ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARDS IN HUNGARY ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS
SETTING ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARDS IN HUNGARY ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS
15 February 2019
What is the standard of review of Hungarian state Courts, when arbitral awards are challenged on the basis of procedural grounds? What are the most frequently invoked procedural faults? We address these question in our article.
Grounds for setting aside
The Hungarian Arbitration Act mirrors the grounds for setting aside of arbitral awards, as defined by the UNCITRAL Model Law, which can be summarized as follows:
- non-existent or invalid arbitration agreement;
- denial of opportunity to present case;
- excess of authority by the arbitral tribunal;
- failure to comply with procedural rules;
- public order;
In the framework of this article we shortly present the case law of Hungarian Courts in relation with the grounds under points b)-d). The common characteristic of these grounds is that the party wishing to annul the award invokes a major procedural fault made by the arbitral tribunal during the arbitration procedure.
Typical procedural faults
Among the 3 procedural grounds mentioned above, the denial of opportunity to present a case is the most frequently invoked in Hungary, probably because it is the easiest to be interpreted broadly.
This ground is mostly invoked together with the other 2 procedural faults, namely the excess of authority and breach of procedural rules by the arbitral tribunal, therefore we discuss these three grounds for setting aside together.
Based on case law of the last decade, Hungarian state courts annulled arbitral awards on the basis of procedural faults
- when the arbitral tribunal based its decision on factual and legal grounds which were not included in the claim or
- when the tribunal made decision on a claim in respect of which the parties could not express their standpoints;
- when the statement of claim was not properly sent to respondent, who could not participate in the proceedings.
- when the arbitral tribunal failed to inform the parties about its opinion regarding invalidity, who therefore could not submit their motions for evidence.
At the same time, as a notable exception, it was held that the party cannot complain that he was denied of the opportunity to present its case in the dispute, when the arbitral tribunal disregarded his motions for evidence.
Example for parochial approach
Sometimes the strictness of state courts goes too far when it comes to procedural faults during arbitration.
In a memorable case the state court annulled the arbitral award on the basis, that despite the provision of the rules of procedures of the Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce, the arbitral tribunal has not rendered the award in a “closed session” with the concurrent presence of the three arbitrators which would allowed them to discuss the arguments in details.
The above judgment, which shows a parochial approach of the judges, received strong criticism from arbitration practitioners. After this judgment, the above arbitral institution changed its rules of procedure by leaving the “closed session’ requirement out from the rules relating to the making of the arbitral award.
Hungarian state courts tend to be strict when it comes to reviewing an arbitral award on the basis of procedural faults. While in most cases this strictness is understandable to protect the parties’ in a commercial arbitration equally, sometimes they go beyond the reasonable standard of review, which sometimes can lead to the triumph of form over the substance.
Hungary: Steps Towards Differentiating Between Domestic and International Procedural Public Policy
Drawing a well-defined line of demarcation between domestic and international public policy when enforcing foreign arbitral awards sends a clear pro-arbitration message from national courts in any jurisdiction. Does Hungarian case law come close to this level of sophistication? This post analyses this question in the context of procedural public policy, and it does so based on two recent appellate court decisions rendered in the context of enforcement of arbitral awards in accordance with the New York Convention.Read more »
EU ISSUED NEW GDPR STANDARD CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES – WHEN AND HOW TO USE THEM?
During summer 2021, the European Commission published two new "standard contractual clauses" on data protection regulation, which can be applied on the one hand, to the legal relationship between data controllers and data processors covered by the GDPR , and to the transfers of personal data to third countries, on the other. In this article, we answer the questions: what these SCCs regulate, how do they differ from the previous SCCs and how can your company use the new SCCs?Read more »
CAN THE NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT BE VALID WITHOUT A PRECISE COMPENSATION IN HUNGARY?
The non-compete agreement may provide protection of the legitimate economic interests of the employer even after the termination of employment relationship. However, the Hungarian Labour Code lays down strict requirements for the agreement. In our article we analyse a recent decision of the Supreme Court about the importance of the precise determination of the compensation, so you as an employer can conclude a valid non-compete agreement.Read more »