CMS Expert Guide to Digital Litigation in Hungary

In recent years, progress has been made in the digitalisation of the Hungarian civil justice system. Changes can mainly be attributed to the transformation of analogue means of communication to digital means. However, other aspects have been improved as well, namely the access to justice.

Rules regarding electronic communication were already introduced in the Hungarian judicial system as early as 2010. On 1 January 2018, a completely revised Act on Code on Civil Procedure (2016. évi CXXX. törvény a polgári perrendtartásról) entered into force, improving on the already existing provisions relating to electronic communication between the courts and the affected parties. The legal and technical background for electronic communication in general was also revamped in 2017 by the introduction of the Act on General Rules for Electronic Transactions and Trust Services (2015. évi CCXXII. törvény az elektronikus ügyintézés és a bizalmi szolgáltatások általános szabályairól; “E-Communication Act”).

One of the core elements of digital communication is that all parties have government provided electronic mailboxes for communication with various state authorities. Electronic mailboxes are uniform for everyone. However, they only serve as inboxes so software is required for outgoing communication. This makes the current system fragmented since different software is required for communicating with, for example, the Tax Authority, Governmental Bureaus, Land Registry, Court of Registry, or the courts in litigious procedures. For communication with courts during litigation, an old and out dated Java-based software programme is still in use, the replacement of which has been on the agenda for some time but without any visible progress to date. The system encrypts the submission and forwards the materials via a secured channel to the courts. This software is used exclusively for all communication with the courts in litigious proceedings. In administrative litigation, however, which is the judicial review of decisions rendered by administrative authorities, the statement of claim must be filed with the authority, and therefore the parties must adhere to the communication method (i.e. software) the given authority has chosen.

In litigation proceedings, lawyers and parties are obligated to file submissions exclusively via electronic communication, and the courts are obliged to communicate with the parties the same way (see exceptions and details in Question 3). Whereas courts also communicate with each other and other authorities via electronic means. Electronic communication with experts, for example, is only optional.

It is possible to conduct hearings and certain evidentiary procedures, such as witness hearings or a hearing of an expert, via videoconference (i.e. “image and sound transmission”). Its introduction was only aimed at speeding up proceedings in certain situations where mandating personal appearance would be an issue. However, in practice the preference remains that court procedures be conducted predominantly in person, and so judges seldom use this method.

Certain courts have already experimented with the use of voice recognition and transcription software to keep hearing minutes. However, the dominant method is still the audio recording of the oral interpretation of events by the judge, which is later manually transcribed. Provided that a court is technically able, minutes can also be recorded via continuous audio and video recording, yet this is seldom used.

The evidentiary effects of electronic documents (i.e. the measures required for an electronic document to have the same probative value as a paper document) are also regulated. In issuing electronic documents, the body authorised to issue authentic instruments or the person issuing a private document with full probative value has to execute the document by a qualified electronic signature or an advanced electronic signature based on a qualified certificate or seal and, if so prescribed by the relevant legislation, a time stamp.

Access to judicial decisions has also been improved in recent years, especially since the introduction of the “limited precedent system” into the Hungarian judicial system. The courts publish anonymised decisions in a searchable internet database although the search functions are quite limited. The selection of decisions is quite wide: all higher court decisions of merit and a selection of lower court decisions are published.

The courts also maintain websites that, based on the details of the given case such as the acting court and the general subject of the case, provide an estimation of the length of the procedure and the amount of stamp duty to be paid in a given procedure. Additionally, parties may register in an online system, after which they are immediately informed via SMS or email of certain events in their proceedings before the court officially informs them. Such a notice would include the setting of a hearing, arrival of an expert opinion, the filing of an appeal, etc. The possibility to inspect the case file online without having to actually go to the court’s premises to review it is also an option for all parties. The system, however, has its shortcomings. For example, it only contains cases that were initiated after 2020 (while many cases commenced before 2020 are still on going) and most non-contentious procedures are excluded. The effective use of the system is also hindered by the fact that access to most files in a given case is subject to a request and file-by-file approval by the acting judge.

Finally, paying for court procedures is also digitalised. While earlier all stamp duties had to be bought in advance and physically stamped on court submissions that were filed on paper, parties can now pay the stamp duty with a wire transfer or by card after the filing of the submission within a given deadline.

There are a few digital measures currently available, mostly regarding the transition from analogue means of communication to digital means as well as digital access to justice.

For parties, the most prominent tool is digital communication with the courts, which is used exclusively for all communication with the courts in litigious proceedings. The system encrypts the submission and forwards it via a secured channel to the courts.

Furthermore, as an important practical development, the stamp duties are paid electronically; within a given deadline the parties can pay the stamp duty with wire transfer or by card. Additionally, various measures are set up to ease access to justice, including the searchable anonymised database publishing court decisions. The selection of available decisions for review is quite wide since all higher court decisions of merit are published, as well as a selection of lower court decisions.

The courts also maintain websites that, based on the details of the given case, provide an estimation of the length of the procedure, as well as the amount of stamp duty to be paid. Additionally, parties may register for an online system after which they are immediately informed via SMS or email of certain events in their proceedings before the court officially informs them. The possibility to inspect the case file online without having to actually go to the court’s premises to review it is also an option for all parties.

In addition to the digitalised communication with the parties, courts also have the possibility of conducting a hearing or another procedural act via videoconference, such as witness hearing or the hearing of an expert. Certain technical tools regarding voice recognition and transcription are currently being experimented with in an effort to facilitate minute keeping. However, the dominant method is still the audio recording of the oral interpretation of events by the judge, which is later manually transcribed.

Regarding the frequency of use of the above-mentioned measures, it is highly variable. For some instruments, their use is mandatory in most cases (e.g. electronic communication; the payment of stamp duties via electronic means; maintaining the court website providing estimation on the length and payment for matters; or the publishing of anonymised decisions) for which the process is becoming increasingly well established. Conversely, other tools (such as videoconference hearings and minute keeping by voice recognition and transcription) are used rarely and courts prefer to rely on their well-established analogue methods. However, the use of these less favoured tools is also increasing, especially since 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In general, the use of digital communication is mandatory for all parties and their counsels in court proceedings, with the exception of parties that are not economic operators and act without legal representation (i.e. individuals acting on their own). It should be noted that in cases where a party has legal representation, as a general rule, the courts only communicate with the legal representatives.

Any submission filed with the court in contravention of the above mandatory provisions is deemed invalid while submissions that would initiate a given proceeding (e.g. statement of claim, appeal, request for supervision) are rejected without consideration. In exceptional cases, some documents can be handed in as a paper document during a hearing.

Parties who are not obliged to use digital communication may communicate with the court on paper via postal services or in-person filings. Nevertheless, these parties have the option to choose digital communication with the court. In such cases, however, digital use becomes mandatory and parties can only revert back to paper filings in exceptional cases.

Courts are obliged to use digital communication with all parties that use digital communication with them. In some exceptional cases, courts may hand over some documents/decisions in paper during a hearing. If one party does not use digital communication but it is mandatory for the other party, the court will digitise the documents the party has submitted on paper and deliver them to the other party electronically, and vice versa.

Parties that are required to use electronic communication with the courts are also obliged to advance the stamp duty electronically. The use of other tools is optional.

In light of the foregoing, Hungary cannot be considered to have a fully digitalised litigation process. In fact, digitalisation only concerns the communication between courts and parties, with the inclusion of exceptional cases where hearings or witness testimonies are conducted through videoconference. All other aspects currently lack digitalisation. Even the digitalisation of communication is limited to the delivery of submissions between parties and courts since the court prints all submissions and a paper filing is kept as a master file of the case. Similarly, delivery of a case file between courts for an appellate or supervisory procedure is done via physically delivering the paper file, and not via electronic means.

Access to justice via electronic means is also in a significantly improved state in Hungary. However, these existing tools offer only basic features.

There are no AI tools or other digital technical measures whose use is regulated and/or commonly used during the litigation process. As simple translation can be filed in the litigation process without any certification, the use of publicly available AI-based translation services is becoming increasingly popular.

Other than the already mentioned rules and regulations, there are no specific rules that address the use of technology in litigation, and we are unaware of any such initiatives.

No specific projects are known of at this time that aim at further fostering the digitalisation of the litigation process.

Although there are a few rules that deal with the use of AI tools in centralised electronic administration services provided by the State, there are no specific rules that apply to the use of AI in litigation. 

There is no information on specific measures addressing the issues of unwanted access or IT-security breaches. Nevertheless, data protection rules also apply to the matters of the courts.

There is no noticeable increase in the use of legal tech tools in Hungary, and no noticeable risks have emerged. Nevertheless, the use of digital tools in litigation can introduce new risks for businesses, and it is important for business to be aware of these risks and the steps required to manage and mitigate them.

There are several tools that facilitate an individual's access to justice such as the publication of anonymised court decisions as well as available tools for the estimation of the length and cost of procedures. Chatbots are not yet used in the Hungarian judicial system.