 Print version
  | - INTRODUCTION (History, purpose of the review and classification of administrative acts, definition of an administrative authority)
- 1. Main dates in the evolution of the review of administrative acts
The „October Diploma” – an Habsburg imperial decree allowing Hungary independence in internal affairs – proved a structural reform of judiciary. The Royal Hungarian Curia regained its lawful powers and reputation. First, as separated public law court the Royal Financial Court was established in 1883. Later the Act XXVI of 1896 set up a single-instance special court, the Royal Administrative Court which incorporated the Financial Court too. It adjudged both general and financial cases in non litigation process. Following the extension of the powers of public law courts was created the Court of Competence to settle disputes of competence between ordinary, administrative courts or authorities of public administration.
After The Second World War traditional formalised law was applied in usual cases of civil and administrative law, but in the area of the administrative law there was no place for courts anymore. Hungary turned from a liberated country into a newly occupied one, where the Communist (later Socialist) Party controlled the administration. The introduction of the reforms in the seventies and eighties set in motion some irrevocable changes. Ordinary courts got the competence to review more than twenty kind of administrative cases (taxes, land registry) in non litigation process. Law and jurisdiction became more liberal.
The change of the regime of 1989-90 created the rule of law in Hungary and gave rise to a gradually evolving reform in judiciary. As first step the Constitutional Court annulled the decree which restricted the scope of the disputable decisions. Act XXVI of 1991 ensures the possibility of judicial revision in every cases. In Hungary, legal practice takes place in a unified system of jurisdiction which have for levels: town, county courts, courts of Appeal, Supreme Court. Administrative cases are arranged on the labour courts (first level in social insurance issues), county courts (general first level) on the Budapest Court of Appeal (in important cases – 10% of all issues -second instance) Supreme Court (extraordinary remedy) - 2. Purpose of the review of administrative acts
Judicial review is available to natural and legal persons in respects of administrative acts that directly affect their rights or interests. According to the „uniformity decision” of the Hungarian Supreme Court associations formed by the citizens for the representation of their environmental interests and other social organisations – which are active in the impact area – shall be entitled in their area to the legal status of being a party in environmental cases. Newly the Convention of Aarhus ensures the position of a party without any subjective affected rights or interests. „Good functioning” of the administration has a great importance where the local government would have no control outside because of the lack of a higher level authority. Here can the County Administrative Office ask for a review without to be affected by the case. - 3. Definition of an administrative authority
Act CXL of 2004 on the General Rules of Administrative Proceedings and Services (hereinafter: Act on Administrative Proceedings) enlists those organs that shall be regarded administrative authorities vested with jurisdiction to carry out administrative actions: state organs, the councils of representatives of local governments, chief notaries, notaries (district-notaries), offices of the councils of representatives, heads of the regional branches of cities of county rank, official administrative associations and other organisations, bodies or persons vested with administrative competence by an Act or Government Decree. If other organisations, public bodies or persons not originally established for administrative services are vested subsequently with administrative competence by an Act or Government Decree, cases that are to be governed by the provisions of the Act on Administrative Proceedings shall be determined.
The tax authority (state tax authority, municipal tax authority and customs authority) is to be regarded a state organ, whose proceedings are governed by Act XCII of 2003 on the Rules of Taxation (hereinafter: Act on Taxation).
The general rules of administrative proceedings are laid down in the Act on Administrative Proceedings and in the Act on Taxation but other acts may also contain provisions relating to administrative proceedings in special cases. (e.g. Act 57 of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair Trading Practices and Unfair Competition and Act 123 of 2003 on Public Procurement) - 4. Classification of administrative acts
According to the Act on Administrative Proceedings administrative actions shall mean:
a) all actions where the administrative authority defines any right or obligation concerning a client, verifies any data, fact or entitlement, maintains official records and registers or conducts a regulatory inspection;
b) procedures for admission into and removal from the register for engaging in activities, where engaging in a specific profession is rendered subject to membership in a public body or other organisation of the like, not including disciplinary and ethics proceedings.
The concept of administrative action relating to taxation is defined by the Act on Taxation as actions involving:
a) mandatory payments related to taxes, contributions, duties, payable pursuant to law to the central budget, extra-budgetary funds, to the Pension Insurance Fund, Health Insurance Fund or to local self-governments,
b) subsidies paid from the central budget or from extra-budgetary funds under the conditions set forth in an act of Parliament, in government or ministerial decrees,
c) procedures related to such payments and budgetary subsidies, if the assessment, collection, execution, refund, disbursement or control of such falls within the competence of the tax authority.
The Act on Administrative Proceedings regulates administrative agreement between administrative authorities and parties. If the administrative authority fails to fulfil the administrative agreement as agreed and fails to comply with the client’s notice requiring performance, the client may seek remedy at the court of jurisdiction for administrative actions. If either of the parties don’t approve the amendment of the administrative agreement, or there is a disagreement between the parties as regards the legal background of the amendment, the court of jurisdiction for administrative actions may be requested to amend or terminate the agreement.
In situations of refusal to act or an omission to do so in cases where the administrative authorities are under an obligation to implement a procedure following a request, the court is entitled to oblige the authority to exercise its competence.
- I – ORGANIZATION AND ROLE OF THE BODIES, COMPETENT TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS
- A. COMPETENT BODIES
- 5. Non-judicial bodies competent to review administrative acts
As a main rule there is a right to appeal in administrative procedures. Higher level authorities that have competence to examine appeals are enlisted by the Administrative Proceedings Act, the Act on Taxation and other acts. - 6. Organization of the court system and courts competent to hear disputes concerning acts of administration
The judicial review of administrative actions is governed by Chapter 20 of Act 3 of 1952 on Civil Procedure (hereinafter: Code of Civil Procedure), there is no special code for the judicial review of administrative actions.
Tribunals are not entitled to hear administrative cases. The county courts and the Municipal Court of Budapest are competent to hear administrative cases but the Municipal Court has exclusive competence in certain matters, mainly in cases where the first instance authority has competence for the whole country (issues of ministries, media cases, public procurement and competition cases, asylum cases).
As a main rule there is no possibility to appeal against the decision of the county court or the Municipal Court acting as a court of first instance. Decisions taken at first instance, therefore, shall be regarded as final decisions concerning which an extraordinary remedy may be requested from the Supreme Court. There is a possibility for ordinary appeal only if there is no possibility of appeal within the administrative procedure and the administrative decision can be modified by the court. Such ordinary appeals are examined by the Regional (Appellate) Court of Budapest. The Regional Court of Budapest has a special function because it examines not only appeals but functions as a first-instance court as well and in this capacity it takes non- contestable decisions. (e.g. it examines the clash of competence between administrative authorities, reviews administrative agreements etc.)
The judicial review of administrative decisions concerning social insurance falls within the scope of powers of labour courts, which proceed according to Chapter 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body. It reviews final decisions if these are challenged through an extraordinary remedy. It adopts uniformity decisions and thereby provides judicial guidance to lower courts, and examines appeals lodged against the decisions of the county courts and the Municipal Court of Budapest in cases established by law.
A Hungarian judge can hear administrative cases only if (s)he is assigned to the list of administrative judges. That means that (s)he can hear administrative cases but is not denied to hear civil cases either.
The Constitutional Court is not part of the ordinary court system. It reviews the constitutionality of normative acts passed by public authorities (e.g. bills of Parliament, rules of local governments). Ordinary judges may initiate ex post review if they think that the law to be applied in a given case is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court examines acts also from the aspect of compatibility with international treaties.
- B. RULES GOVERNING THE COMPETENT BODIES
- 7. Origin of rules delimiting the competence of ordinary courts in the review of administrative acts
According to the Constitution ordinary courts shall control the lawfulness of administrative actions. Case law extended the competence of courts step by step in the last decade. The uniformity decision of the Supreme Court (1/1999) declared that a „letter” of the police which was written as an answer to a complaint about a measure of an officer shall be considered an administrative action. Another uniformity decision (3/1998) pointed out: an administrative decision declaring a lack of administrative competence may be appealed at court. The Act on Administrative Proceedings and chapter 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure contain the same regulation, consequently there is now no obstacle to the judicial control of administrative actions.
In view of uniformity decision 1/2009 of the Supreme Court the nature of judicial review (litigious or non-litigious proceeding) shall be determined not by the form of decision of the administrative authority (that is whether it as a judgement or an order) but by the content of the decision. - 8. Existence and origins of specific rules related to the competence and duties of the administrative courts or tribunals
./.
- C. INTERNAL ORGANIZATION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COMPETENT BODIES
- 9. Internal organization of the ordinary courts competent to review administrative acts
First instance – county courts: if there are at least 12 administrative judges at the court they comprise a separate division for administrative law. If there are less than 12 people they are members of a common division of civil and administrative law. Administrative divisions discuss practical issues and they regularly have official sessions. The division gives a non-binding opinion about applicants for administrative judgeship. Administrative divisions are to be found only at the Municipal Court of Budapest, the Regional Court of Budapest and the Supreme Court, within which judges and panels are specialised in certain types of cases.
Administrative judges at first instance examine their cases as single judges. If the judge assesses the case too difficult, or the case is a significant one (s)he can ask for a three-judge panel, which has to accept the initiation of the single judge.
The Budapest Court of Appeal and Supreme Court: Three-judge panels deal with the case, one of them reports the case and if there is a hearing, the head of the panel leads it. There is a formal vote for the judgement, where the youngest judge votes first, and the head of the panel last. The minority opinion can be enclosed to the case for the higher level court, which can take it into account at the second instance or in case of an extraordinary revision.
The judicial review of administrative cases concerning social insurance is carried out by labour courts. Labour courts are not part of administrative divisions but their proceeding is also governed by Act 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - 10. Internal organization of the administrative courts
./.
- D. JUDGES
- 11. Status of judges who review administrative acts
Administrative judges belong to a specific category. They need a special appointment by the National Judiciary Council (NJC). This appointment concerns only two types of cases, namely tax and custom cases, but practically all administrative judges are appointed for this special position. - 12. Recruitment of judges in charge of review of administrative acts
Administrative judges are recruited partly from the administration, partly among trainee-judges of the court. There is no special condition for the position. - 13. Professional training of judges
The NJC has a department that organizes professional training (a three-day session every autumn and several one-day sessions on current topics). The Association of Hungarian administrative judges organizes 3-6 conferences a year to make judges up-to-date. - 14. Promotion of judges
Every judge’s position is being advertised. The administrative division and the self-governing body of judges express an opinion about the candidates. (Self- governing bodies are elected by all judges at every court – except for lowest level courts – for 6 years.)
Promotion in wages depends on the length of service (increases automatically by some percentage every 3 years), and on the level of the court (20% at the county courts, 40% at the courts of appeal, 60% at the Supreme Court). - 15. Professional mobility of judges
Judges can’t work outside the court except for the Ministry of the Justice, where they can take part in the work of the legislative department as “temporary codificator”. The ordinary work as a judge is banned for this time. It is not possible to take up another position in public administration.
Usually judges move from lower courts to higher courts, but not often between courts of the same level.
- E. ROLE OF THE COMPETENT BODIES
- 16. Available kinds of recourse against administrative acts
As a main rule the court can review administrative final decisions taken on the merits of the case in a litigious proceeding. The court shall proceed on the basis of the request that includes the alleged violation of law. In exceptional cases decisions (resolutions) taken by the administrative authority on procedural issues (e.g. suspension or termination of the proceeding, imposition of a fine) can also be reviewed where they can be appealed during the administrative proceeding. Resolutions shall also be reviewed by the court if they were adopted by a minister, the head of an autonomous government body, or other similar government agency, the head of central government body, or if no appeal is permitted by law against the decision of the first instance in the case in question, and it allows for the judicial review of that decision. In this case the review shall be carried out upon claim in non-litigious proceedings. If the law does not permit an appeal against the resolution, the client may challenge the lawfulness of procedures within the claim against the decision on the merits of the case (e.g. resolutions of tax authorities shall not be subjected to judicial review).
As a main rule judicial review of a final decision can only take place if one of the parties involved in the administrative procedure has exhausted the right of appeal or law excludes the possibility of appeal (e.g. the court shall review only the final decision taken by the tax authority of second instance).
The administrative court – upon the claim of the party (on issues requested by the party), in a litigious or non-litigious procedure – has to examine whether the administrative decision is lawful or not. The judgement of the court shall be governed by facts that existed and law that was in force when the administrative decision was taken. Unlawfulness may be established in procedural or substantive issues, infringement of procedural law may, however, lead to the annulment of an administrative decision only if it bears on the merits of the case and cannot be remedied within the procedure at the court.
As a main rule the administrative court – in case there is an infringement of law bearing on the merits of the case – annuls the decision and if needed obliges the administrative authority to carry out a new procedure, for which the court lays down obligatory requirements. In certain cases the court may also modify the decision of the administrative authority – these cases are enlisted in the Code of Civil Procedure (e.g. taxation, public procurement, real estates etc.) The administrative court is entitled to review appeals against decisions taken in discretionary powers.
If the administrative authority fails to execute its vested authority in a non- litigious proceeding the court shall, at the client’s request, order the authority to conclude the procedure.
If the administrative authority fails to fulfil the administrative agreement as agreed and fails to comply with the client’s notice requiring performance, the client may seek remedy at the court of jurisdiction for administrative actions. If either of the parties don’t approve the amendment of the administrative agreement, or there is a disagreement between the parties as regards the legal background of the amendment, the court of jurisdiction for administrative actions may be requested to amend or terminate the agreement.
Claims for damages for harmful administrative acts, are exclusively heard by civil law judges. - 17. Existence of mechanisms for the delivery of a preliminary ruling apart from the procedure under the Article 234 of the EC Treaty
The Constitutional court has competence to examine the constitutionality of the law, which is applicable in an administrative review case. The administrative judge suspends the case and asks the examination of the Constitutional Court.
That is the way at the unconstitutionality of municipal regulations too. If the regulation is annulled by the Constitutional Court it can’t be applied in the concrete case. - 18. Advisory functions of the competent bodies
All bills and drafts of government decrees should be referred to the Supreme Court to report on if they touch upon the jurisdiction of the courts. The Supreme Court gives expert opinion, as representative of the Supreme Court some judges take part in the work of codification committees. - 19. Organization of the judicial and advisory functions of the competent bodies
These opinions belong to the activity of the Supreme Court, and not to the individual judge.
- F. ALLOCATION OF DUTIES AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMPETENT BODIES
- 20. Role of the supreme courts in ensuring the uniform application and interpretation of law
The Supreme Court has several means to ensure uniform application and interpretation of law. If there is a divergence in the case law or between lower courts, the president of the Supreme Court, the leader of the administrative division of the Supreme Court, or the head of the panel in the Supreme Court can bring in action a special procedure for the unification of the law. The judgement which is binding to the courts is passed by an extended panel of five or seven judges. The Administrative Division of the Supreme Court adopts non-binding opinions regularly. Judgements in individual cases are published, so the Supreme Court’s practice influences the judiciary.
- II – JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS
- A. ACCESS TO JUSTICE
- 21. Preconditions of access to the courts
It is essential that proper remedies in the proceedings before the administrative authority be exhausted. - 22. Right to bring a case before the court
Anybody (natural or legal person) whose rights or legal interests are directly affected by an administrative act can bring a case to the court. - 23. Admissibility conditions
The action has to contain the factual and legal reasons but the court examines ex officio whether the plaintiff’s rights or interests are affected by the administrative act. Paragraph 98 of the Act on the protection of the environment gives access to courts for environmental associations in environmental issues. The Public Prosecutor’s Office can suit when the client is not able to protect his/her rights. - 24. Time limits to apply to the courts
A review must be asked within 30 days of the delivery of the decision. The time- limit is the same in the case of action against inactivity from the date when the authority had to fulfil its duty. - 25. Administrative acts excluded from judicial review
Any final decision of authorities can be attacked at the court. Approximately 50% of acts of preliminary nature can be appealed, and also challenged directly before the court. Other acts of preliminary nature are reviewed indirectly, in the review-procedure of the final administrative decision. - 26. Screening procedures
No more screening procedures. The Constitutional Court annulled these rules last year explaining that the Supreme Court can not refuse a review in an individual case reasoning with general aspects of fundamental importance. - 27. Form of application
The action must be filed in writing. The plaintiff has to enclose the copy of the challenged decision, or has to give the main dates of it. It must state the infringement of law. The plaintiff has to present the relevant facts and his/her reason why and how far he/she challenges the decision. - 28. Possibility of bringing proceedings via information technologies
Not yet. - 29. Court fees
A court fee in form of duty stamps amounting to 16 500 Ft (~ 66 €) is paid for an action against the administrative decision, and 36 000 Ft (~ 140 €) for the review of the Supreme Court. There is a higher fee for cases where the obligation of the authority is a payment (taxes, costums, fines), 6% of the challenged sum, but can not be more than 900 000 Ft (~ 3600 €) in first and second instance and 2 500 000 Ft (~ 10 000 €) at the Supreme Court. Fees are paid only after the procedure in administrative cases. - 30. Compulsory representation
Legal representation of the client submitting a claim is obligatory at the Regional Court of Budapest and the Supreme Court. Representation may be carried out by an attorney, law firm or counsel. - 31. Legal aid
The court appoints an appointed advocate for an incompetent person or for a legal person without legal representation and also for a person staying at an unknown place if (s)he has no attorney. The status of the appointed advocate is identical with that of an attorney at law.
Upon request the court may grant a natural person partial or absolute exemption from court costs if (s)he cannot cover those costs because of his/her disadvantageous financial situation. Exemption from court costs may mean exemption from duties, exemption from various costs related to the proceeding (e.g. fee of witnesses, experts) and the provision of representation by a appointed advocate.
Legal aid is regulated by Act 80 of 2003 on Legal Aid and the tasks related to legal aid are accomplished by an office under the direction of the Ministry of Justice and Police according to Government Decree 306/2006. - 32. Fine for abusive or unjustified applications
There is no such provision.
- B. MAIN TRIAL
- 33. Fundamental principles of the main trial
The court is responsible for ensuring that the right of the parties to the fair settlement of legal disputes within a reasonable time is observed. The court conducts the proceeding upon request. The request – if law does not stipulate otherwise – may be submitted only by a party interested in the dispute. Unless otherwise provided by law, the court is bound by the request and legal declarations of the parties, which the court shall consider not by their formal designation but according their content. In taking its the decision the court is not bound by decisions of any other authority or any disciplinary decision, neither by facts established therein. Unless otherwise established by law, the court settles the dispute in the course of a public hearing. The language of the proceedings is Hungarian but nobody shall be affected disadvantageously because of not knowing Hungarian. In cases established by law, the court shall provide help upon request to enable the party to turn to the court in order to assert his/her rights and lawful interests. The court is obliged to provide the necessary information to a party who has no legal representative and to remind him/her of his/her rights and obligations, as well as it shall provide information on the possibility and conditions of making use of the services of appointed advocates.
The hearings are public but upon request or ex officio the court may exclude the public from all or part of the trial (e.g. if its is considered necessary in order to keep a state or service secret or to protect the personal rights of a party or to protect the life and safety of a witness or a relative thereof). - 34. Judicial impartiality
Judges who are affected by the administrative case can not take part in the procedure and have to notify the president of the court about this fact. If the judge is liable to be biased, another panel makes the judgement. Judges who worked earlier at an administrative authority before having been appointed to be a judge can not deal with cases of this authority for two years. - 35. Possibility to rely on the new legal arguments in the course of proceedings
The action can be modified until the end of the first hearing at first instance. Modification means to give another direction to the review. Deepening the argumentation or referring to a new paragraph won’t be considered as modification of the action. After the application has been lodged it can not be changed at the Supreme Court. - 36. Persons allowed to intervene during the main hearing
All clients of the administrative procedure and anybody who is affected by the administrative decision can intervene until the end of the last hearing at first instance. The court decides whether it accepts the intervention or not. - 37. Existence and role of the representative of the State (“ministère public”) in administrative cases
There is no right for a representative of the State to intervene in judicial review proceedings. - 38. Existence of an institution or a person with a role analogous to the French "Commissaire du gouvernement"
There is no such institution, but the Public Prosecutor’s Office controls the administration, and can “appeal” against administrative decisions. If it is not accepted the Office can file a suit against the decision. - 39. Termination of court proceedings before the final judgment
If the authority modifies its decision in a way that it becomes satisfying for the plaintiff, the latter may withdraw the complaint. For reasons determined by law (e.g. upon request from the parties, due to absence of the parties) the case may be suspended for six months and if the parties do not ask for continuing the case, it shall be terminated. The court shall stop the proceedings in cases determined by the Code of Civil Procedure, e.g. the plaintiff does not turn up at the first hearing, the plaintiff withdraws the action, the parties together ask for the termination of the case, a natural person dies or a legal person winds up and the nature of legal relation excludes the possibility of succession, upon request of a party if the extinct party has no successor, if the plaintiff who is obliged to proceed with legal representation does not make up for a terminated legal representation. - 40. Role of the court registry in serving procedural documents
Yes. - 41. Duty to provide evidence
In administrative cases the court shall provide evidence ex officio only in exceptional cases provided by law, evidence otherwise shall be provided by the parties.
As a main rule providing evidence of relevant facts shall burden the party who is interested in their acceptance as real by the court. If however the administrative proceeding was launched ex officio or the administrative authority did not comply with its obligation to establish the facts of the case, the administrative authority shall provide evidence regarding the facts of the case on which its decision was based if they are contested by the plaintiff.
In view of the principle of free assessment of evidence the court as a main rule is not bound by formal rules of evidence, by any specific mode of evidence or the application of any specific means of evidence, it shall assess the declarations of the parties, or any evidence that is suitable to disclose the facts of the case in a way it finds most expedient. - 42. Form of the hearing
Generally the oral hearing is open to the public. Taking into account the declaration of the parties the judge decides whether or not it is possible to take photos, video or audio records at the court room. Data of private life or business can justify hearings in camera. Oral hearings are conducted in the same way as civil law cases. Parties can express their opinion; can ask questions of the other parties, witnesses, experts. At the end they express their views and final proposals. Judgement is announced and a shortly reasoning is given. - 43. Judicial deliberation
Only the single judge alone or the panel passes the judgement. The panel deliberates in secret at the discretion of the judges.
- C. JUDGMENT
- 44. Grounds for the judgment
Judgements contain factual and legal grounds, evidence and usually deal with the relevant objection raised. The explanation of the reasons must be sufficient to enable the parties to understand it. - 45. Applicable national and international legal norms
Reference norms are usually national provisions, but also the Constitution, Community law and jurisprudence. - 46. Criteria and methods of judicial review
The parties have to suggest the factual and legal grounds upon which a decision may be held unlawful. The court does not usually conduct any inquiry of its own. The court overrules discretionary administrative decisions when they can be declared unlawful. The higher court can change the lower instance judgement, or can modify the reasoning too. - 47. Distribution of legal costs
The losing party bears the costs of the successful party, but if they both are partly successful and losing, the court may order that each party bear its own cost. - 48. Composition of the court (single judge or a panel)
At first instance the decision is taken almost always by a single judge, at second instance and at the Supreme Court by three judges. There is a new provision that came into force on 1 November 2005, which authorizes the single judge at first instance to order that a panel should deal with the case if it seems to be complicated. - 49. Dissenting opinions
There is a vote where the opinion of the majority will be the judgement. The dissenting opinion can be attached in a closed envelope which can be read only by the higher court panel if there is an appeal or review of the Supreme Court. - 50. Public pronouncement and notification of the judgment
Judgements are announced in public and delivered in writing. The court puts down its ruling in writing within 15 days of pronouncement.
In view of Act XC of 2005 on the Freedom of Electronic Information court decisions shall be accessible for the public in an anonymous version on the Internet for free and without personal identification.
The uniformity decisions and decisions on theoretical issues taken by the Supreme Court are published in Court Decisions and Decisions on Theoretical Issues, the former appears monthly, the latter every half a year. There is a separate periodical for administrative decisions, including decisions as well as college opinions on issues of current law interpretation.
- D. EFFECTS AND EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
- 51. Authority of the judgment. Res judicata, stare decisis
The judgement binds only the parties of the proceeding. The unification judgement of the Supreme Court has a binding effect for all courts. - 52. Powers of the court in limiting the effects of judgment in time
Courts can not limit the effects of the judgement in time. - 53. Right to the execution of judgment
According to a new national provision the administrative decision made (by the court) in a repeated procedure may be “invalid” if it is controversial with the judgement. In this way it is guaranteed that the judicial opinion of courts are implemented by administrative authorities. In the case of inactivity the authority can be fined. - 54. Recent efforts to reduce the length of court proceedings
If the action includes a request for suspension of the execution of the administrative decision, the court has to decide within 8 days.
If there is no preliminary evidence, the court shall schedule the first hearing in a way that it can be held within 60 days at the latest from the arrival of documents at the court. If the complaint needs some measures to be taken by the court, deadlines for the first trial shall be calculated from the date the required measures were taken.
In case of extraordinary remedies, the Supreme Court shall take its decision within 120 days from the reception of the claim.
The court shall announce the resolutions taken during the proceeding and the judgement on the day of the trial. Announcement of the judgement may be postponed – with 15 days at most – but it has to fix the day of announcement and it has to put down the judgement in writing by that day. The decision – except if its announcement is postponed – shall be put down in writing within 15 days from its announcement and shall be delivered within 8 days therefrom. If the court postpones the announcement of the decision, it shall deliver the written decision to those present at the announcement immediately, and within 8 days to parties not present.
- E. REMEDIES
- F. EMERGENCY AND SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS / APPLICATIONS FOR INTERIM RELIEF
- 57. Existence of emergency and/or summary proceedings
Cases of exceptional urgency are listed by law (issues of authority of guardians, disputes relating to elections etc).
Upon request the plaintiff can be awarded a dilatory effect if the execution of the decision would mean an irrecoverable harm for the plaintiff and it is more significant than the interest of the public. - 58. Requests eligible for the emergency and/or summary proceedings
Request for suspension of the execution has to present the threat of serious harm. - 59. Kinds of summary proceedings
Cases of exceptional urgency are listed by law (issues of authority of guardians, disputes relating to elections etc). There is a strict time-limit for having a hearing and passing the final decision.
- III – NON-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTES
- IV – ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND STATISTIC DATA
- A. FINANCIAL RESOURCES MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS
- B. OTHER STATISTICS
- 70. Number of new applications registered every year
There is no statistics on non-litigious cases.
New applications (litigious cases):
| | All | Supreme Court | | 2005 | 13.330 | 1.060 | | 2006 | 15.757 | 1.282 | | 2007 | 12.687 | 1.356 | | 2008 | 12.928 | 1.394 | | 2009 (first half) | 6.388 | 851 |
Statistics show that about 10% of the cases are reviewed (in the frame of an extraordinary remedy) by the Supreme Court.
New applications at the Municipal Court of Budapest: approx. 3.000 per year, at the Regional Court of Budapest: approx. 1.800 per year. - 71. Number of cases heard every year by the courts or other competent bodies
Cases disposed of by the courts:
| | by all courts | by the Supreme Court | | 2005 | 12.635 | 794 | | 2006 | 15.705 | 1060 | | 2007 | 12.462 | 1164 | | 2008 | 12.834 | 1222 | | 2009 (first half) | 6.955 | 982 |
On the average the Municipal Court of Budapest and the Regional Court of Budapest dispose of as many cases as they receive. - 72. Number of pending cases
There is no relevant statistics but the number of such cases is not significant. - 73. Average time taken between the lodging of a claim and a judgment
The average length of proceedings is 6-12 months at the Municipal Court of Budapest. At the Regional Court of Budapest 40% of the cases are disposed of within 3 months, 40% within 3-6 months and the rest within one year. The average length of proceedings is 8-10 months at the Supreme Court. - 74. Percentage and rate of the annulment of administrative acts decisions by the lower courts
Out of all applications the county courts and the capital court annulled 10-20% of administrative decisions. - 75. The volume of litigation per field
Out of all cases registered at the Municipal Court of Budapest (annually about 3.000 cases) there are about 500 cases concerning taxation, customs and excise duties, 500 concerning building, 500 concerning refugees and immigration control, 200 concerning public procurement, 100 concerning guardianship, social (welfare) issues and compensation, 50 concerning competition, consumer protection, news release. (The Municipal Court of Budapest has exclusive competence in the whole country to examine certain types of cases, e.g. refugee cases, competition cases, cases of news release, cases of consumer protection and public procurement and cases concerning decisions of the National Radio and Television Commission etc.)
One fifth of the cases registered at the Regional Court of Budapest concern public procurement, compensation, competition, expropriation and actions against the decisions of the National Radio and Television Commission, the rest is cases whose appeals it has exclusive power to examine as an appellate court with competence for the whole country.
At the Supreme Court 60% of the cases registered concern taxation, customs, excise duties, duties, decisions of the supervising organ of gambling and banks and decision of other financial authorities. About 15 % of the cases concern real estates and building, the rest is other, e.g. expropriation, compensation, environment, public procurement, competition etc.
- C. ECONOMICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE
|
