Hungary adopts new public procurement transparency rules, featuring transparent economic operator exclusion ground

Hungary has adopted amendments to Act CXLIII of 2015 on Public Procurements (PPA), introducing a revised exclusion ground related to the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO). The amendments introduce the "transparent economic operator" into the Hungarian PPA and imposes new ownership and control disclosure obligations on economic operators participating in public procurement procedures.

Transparent economic operator exclusion ground

Under the new rules, an economic operator is excluded from public procurement procedures if it does not qualify as a transparent economic operator.  An economic operator is considered transparent under the PPA if its beneficial owner, as defined in Section 3 (38) a), b), d), e), or g) of Act LIII of 2017 on the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (AML Act), is identifiable to the contracting authority, and has disclosed its ownership and control structure to the contracting authority.

How to certify this exclusion ground

Bidders must submit a statement to the contracting authority identifying all their UBOs based on Sections 3 (38) a), b), d), e), or g) of the AML Act, together with information including personal identification data, tax identification data, nature and extent of their interest etc.

Where there is no such UBO, the economic operator must submit a declaration stating this, together with a presentation of the economic operator's ownership and control structure. Currently, there is no official guidance specifying the exact details this declaration should disclose.

Contracting authority's right to request further information

During the evaluation of the bids, the contracting authority can request further information for the purpose of identifying the natural person exercising actual control or supervision over the economic operator and to ensure the transparency of the ownership and control structure. 

This can include presenting the ownership, control structure and UBOs identifiable per Section 3 (38) a), b), d), e), or g) of the AML Act of the followings:

• any legal entity or organisation with legal capacity that holds, directly or indirectly, more than 25% of the ownership interest or voting rights in the economic operator;
• named subcontractors;
• external capacity providers.

Changes in the UBO definition as per the AML Act

Act XVIII of 2026 on the Amendment of Certain Laws Necessary for Access to European Union Funds amended the AML Act and expanded the category of natural persons qualifying as UBOs for legal entities, organisations without legal personality and closed-ended alternative investment funds (AIFs).  

Generally, for legal entities and organisations without legal personality, the amendment broadened the existing UBO definition to include the following categories of individuals:

• a natural person holding a class of shares that confers at least one of the following preferential rights: voting preference or the right to appoint a member of the management body or supervisory board;
• a natural person who, by virtue of their membership interest, is entitled to receive distributions from the entity's assets or profits amounting to at least 25%; and
• a natural person for whom distributions from the entity's assets or profits amounting to at least 25% in aggregate have been prescribed during any of the preceding five financial years.

In addition, under the new rules, a natural person now qualifies as a UBO of a closed-ended AIF if the person has exercised the following effective influence:

• de facto influence over the investment policy, investment decisions, asset allocation, or risk management of the closed-ended AIF;
• voting rights sufficient to block investor approvals that are required under the closed-ended AIF's management rules for amending those rules, transferring the management or winding up the fund;
• actual determining influence over the closed-ended AIF's decision-making or activities, where this is not already captured by the two criteria above;
• where no natural person can be identified as UBO under the above criteria, the manager of the alternative investment fund manager that is managing the closed-ended AIF must be deemed the UBO.

Practical implications

In light of the above changes, economic operators are advised to review their ownership structure, confirm their UBOs and related public procurement statements under the amended rules. They should also prepare for the contracting authority’s potential further information request with more detailed statements on the UBOs, ownership and control structure.

For assistance on navigating these new requirements, contact your CMS client partner or the CMS experts who contributed to this article.