CLVPartners

CLV-02
Menu

Civil Code

General information on the legal regulation of group of companies

Corporate law, News / / , , , , , ,

Reading time: 6 minutes

In modern economic life, in order to increase efficiency and share resources and market risks, companies are increasingly forming close cooperation systems, known as groups of companies (or conglomerates). However, this process often proves to be contrary to the basic principles of classical corporate law, which is based on the independence and separate liability of legal entities. Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code (“Civil Code”) offers a structured solution to this dilemma with the institution of recognized groups of companies, providing a legal framework and a strict warranty system for the responsible economic and legal operation of corporate groups.

Given that the regulation of group of companies will change this spring, our article presents the regulatory system for group of companies in order to provide greater clarity on the background to the changes.

The recognized corporate groups

In order for close cooperation between companies to qualify as recognized corporate groups, three conceptual elements must be present:

there must be a controlling member that is required to prepare consolidated annual accounts;

there must be at least three different legal entities controlled by the controlling member;

a uniform business policy must be established, which is laid down in the control contract itself.

The group of companies is established by drawing up a draft control contract and obtaining the approval of a three-quarters majority of the members (subject to the successful fulfilment of the relevant disclosure obligations). The controlling member must apply for registration in the commercial register within 60 days of the final approval.

The control contract

The control contract is the central regulatory instrument for the operation of the group of companies, as it contains the uniform business policy that forms the basis for cooperation. In addition to the most important identifying details of the members, the contract must also specify the form of their cooperation and its essential elements.

It is important that the contract only restricts the independence of the controlled members to the extent necessary to achieve the uniform business objective. Under the rules of the Civil Code, the management of the controlling member may instruct the management of the members within the framework of the control agreement. In this case, the rules on the exclusivity of decisions of the supreme body do not apply either.

In order to ensure transparent operation, the management of the members of the group of companies (including the controlling member) is obliged to report to the supreme bodies at least once a year on the activities related to the performance of the agreement. The management of the controlling member also has an additional obligation to inform creditors with significant claims. If the latter fails to do so, the creditor may apply to the court of registration.

Minority protection

The operation of a group of companies requires specific minority protection rules, as members with a small shareholding must adapt not only to the majority owner within their own company, but also to the majority owner of the controlling member. For this reason, the law provides for special minority protection guarantees both at the time of the formation of the group of companies and during its operation:

upon the formation of the group of companies: members of legal entities joining as controlled members who do not wish to participate in the group of companies may request, within 30 days of the second publication of the announcement of the formation, that the controlling member purchase their shares at market value;

during the operation of the group: if the controlling member substantially or repeatedly breaches the control agreement, members holding at least 5% of the votes of the controlled member, as well as the management of the controlled member, may initiate the convening of the supreme body of the controlling member. This creates an opportunity to bring the breach of contract before the highest decision-making forum of the controlling member. If the management of the controlling member does not comply with the request, the court may also convene the meeting or authorize the applicants to do so.

Creditor protection and underlying liability

One of the fundamental objectives of the establishment and operation of a group of companies is to protect the interests of creditors.

The main security provided by the system is the underlying liability of the controlling member. If any of the controlled members is liquidated, the controlling member is obliged to cover the unsatisfied debts. The controlling member may be exempted from liability if it can successfully prove that the insolvency was not a consequence of the implementation of a uniform business policy.

Supervision by the Court of Registry

The Court of Registry, which is responsible for registration, supervises the legality of the group of companies. In the event of a material or repeated breach of the control agreement, any legally interested party (e.g. a member or creditor) may request that the Court of Registry conduct a legality supervision procedure against the group of companies.

De facto groups of companies

A de facto group of companies exists when uniform management or close economic cooperation has been in place for three years without the parties complying with the formal requirements (control contract, registration). According to long-standing rules, at the request of any legally interested party, the court may oblige the group of companies to conclude a control agreement or to apply the relevant provisions in the absence of such an agreement, thereby creating both underlying liability and the possibility for minority members of controlled subsidiaries to exit.

Regarding actual groups of companies, the amendment, which will enter into force on March 1, 2026, clarified the concept of a legally interested party: in the future, anyone to whom the controlling member would be liable (i.e., typically the creditor of the controlled member) will be considered to have a legal interest. The amendment prioritizes creditor protection by directly linking the existence of an actual group of companies to the obligation to pay, thus making the underlying liability of the controlling member enforceable for aggrieved creditors despite the lack of a formal framework.

Summary

The regulation of groups of companies is based on the balance of ‘power and responsibility’. The institution of acknowledged group of companies offers legal certainty by ensuring the right to uniform management and instruction, while at the same time protecting economic actors with strict guarantees. It is in the fundamental interest of company managers to ensure that the group operates in compliance with legal guarantees and within a transparent contractual framework, thereby avoiding unexpected underlying liabilities and legal disputes.

Photo source: pexels.com, Fauxels

General information on the legal regulation of group of companies Read More »

Product liabilty rules are changing

Commercial Law, Competition law and consumer protection, News / / , , , ,

Reading time: 4 minutes

Considering modern technological developments, it has become necessary to rethink product liability regulations, as a result of which the European Parliament and the Council have adopted Directive 2024/2853 (“Directive“) on liability for defective products and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC. The aim of the Directive is to promote a balance between the responsibility of economic operators and a high level of consumer protection. To comply with the Directive, whose provisions must be implemented by Member States into their national legislation by 9 December 2026 at the latest, the Ministry of Justice has drafted amendments to private law, including a comprehensive review of the product liability rules of the Act V of 2013 on Civil Code (“Civil Code“). In this article, we present the new rules on product liability.

What is a product?

The comprehensive reform of EU regulations was prompted by technological developments: the spread of digital and smart devices has brought new risks, which are addressed by the Directive and, through its implementation, by Hungarian regulations. One of the most significant innovations is that, based on the Directive, the Civil Code extends the concept of a product: Under the new provisions, any movable item is considered a product, even if it is incorporated into or connected to another movable item or immovable property, including electricity, digital manufacturing files, raw materials, and software. This means that the new liability rules will apply to products placed on the market or put into service after 9 December 2026, including digital manufacturing files and software, whether they are sold as stand-alone products or integrated into other devices.

However, free and open-source software developed or made available in the course of non-commercial activities is exempt from these regulations.

Who bears the responsibility?

The basic principle of product liability is that, to protect consumers, it imposes obligations on economic operators who are responsible for damage caused by defective products. Under the new rules, the scope of persons who can be held liable is expanded, meaning that product liability may be imposed on the following economic operators:

The manufacturer of the product is primarily responsible for any defects in the product, i.e., the party who develops, manufactures, produces, labels the product as the manufacturer, or develops, manufactures, or produces the product for their own use.

If the defect is caused by an integrated component, the manufacturer of that component shall also be liable if the component was incorporated into a product under the manufacturer’s control.

If the product or its component parts originate from a manufacturer operating outside the European Union, responsibility lies with the company importing the product into the EU, i.e. the company placing the product on the EU market, and the manufacturer’s authorized representative.

If the importer or the manufacturer’s authorized representative is also not based in the EU, then the logistics service provider is responsible, i.e. anyone who offers at least two of the following services in the course of their commercial activities: storage, packaging, addressing, and shipping of a product, without owning the product in question.

The distributor shall also be liable if the person responsible cannot be identified and, at the request of the injured party, does not identify the economic operator or distributor listed above.

In addition, if a natural or legal person substantially modifies a product without the manufacturer’s knowledge or control and then distributes or puts it into service, that person is also considered a manufacturer under the law and may be liable for product damage.

A new provision is that the manufacturer of a defective product is jointly and severally liable for product damage with other economic operators cooperating with it, such as the component manufacturer or importer, so that the consumer can claim full compensation from any of them. The economic operator providing compensation to the injured party may then recourse against the other responsible economic operators.

When is a product considered defective?

A product is considered defective if it does not provide the level of safety that is generally expected of that type of product or that is required by EU legislation or relevant domestic regulations. When assessing the level of safety, factors such as the reasonably foreseeable use of the product, the date of placing on the market, and the reasonable expectations of consumers must be considered. At the same time, the mere fact that a more advanced or modern version becomes available after the product’s release—whether in the form of an update or a completely new product—does not in itself render the previous model defective. The basis for assessing a defective product is therefore not its comparison with the latest technological standards, but rather whether it provides the level of safety that could be expected at the time of its manufacture.

When can the manufacturer, importer, or other economic operator be exempt from liability?

Economic operators may be exempted from product liability under certain conditions if they can prove that the defect causing the damage did not arise within their sphere of responsibility or was not foreseeable.

The manufacturer or importer shall be exempt from liability if they can prove that they did not place the product on the market or put it into service. The distributor may be exempt if they can prove that they did not make the product in question available on the market.

Any economic operator may be exempted from liability if they can prove that the defect in the product was not likely to exist at the time of placing on the market, putting into service or distribution, or that it only arose after that time. However, this provision shall not apply if the defect of the product is related to a service associated with the product under the manufacturer’s control, to software accompanying the product (including software updates or upgrades), to the absence of software updates or upgrades necessary to maintain safety, or to a material modification of the product.

Liability shall also be excluded if the defect of the product results from compliance with legal requirements (e.g., adherence to a mandatory technical standard that caused the defect), or if the defect could not have been detected based on the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time the product was placed on the market or put into use, or while the product was still under the manufacturer’s control.

Unchanged provisions

The manufacturer and other liable parties are subject to product liability for a period of 10 years. The injured party must still prove the defect in the product, the damage suffered, and the existence of a causal link between the defect and the damage. There is a three-year limitation period for asserting claims, which begins from the date on which the injured party became aware or could reasonably have become aware of the occurrence of the damage, the defect in the product, and the identity of the responsible economic operator.

Summary

The Directive and its domestic implementation bring significant changes to product liability regulations. With these amendments, both the definition of “product” and the scope of parties who may be held liable for damages caused by defective products are expanded. The concept of a product now includes software, digital manufacturing files, and related services, meaning that the liability framework also applies to modern, digital, and complex technologies. This implies that economic operators will need to act with greater caution and awareness in the design, manufacture, distribution, and modification of products in the future.

The aim of the new regulation is to strengthen consumer protection against modern product risks, while at the same time imposing greater liability on economic operators. In light of these changes, it is essential for the affected companies to review their operations, internal processes, contracts, and liability insurance practices.

Photo source: pexels.com, Lukas

Product liabilty rules are changing Read More »

Special rules in case of foreign founder(s) and/or managing director(s)

Corporate law, News / / , , , ,

Reading time: 4 minutes

Introduction

In the following article, we have compiled the most important topics that inevitably arise in the life of companies with foreign members or executives. Regardless of the type of foreign person, if he plays a role in the company’s life from a company law viewpoint, there are a few additional matters that will certainly arise during the company establishment or change procedure.

Company extract of the foreign member

If a foreign legal person becomes a member of a company, either at the time of incorporation or later, or if there is a change in its data (e.g., the foreign member’s registered seat changes), the foreign company’s company extract or other document with identical content (e.g., a notarial statement), and its certified Hungarian translation must be submitted to the Court of Registry. The purpose of this is to certify the

registration of the foreign company under its own law,

data of the foreign company, and

person(s) authorized to represent the foreign company.

In this case, the foreign company member must request its company extract from its own court of registry/registry authority, which must then be prepared in a certified Hungarian translation by a qualified translator.

Delivery agent

If a foreign legal person or a foreign natural person, who has no address in Hungary holds a position in the company (e.g., member or managing director of the company, member of the supervisory board, etc.), he/she must designate a person to be his/her delivery agent.

A delivery agent can be an organization with its registered seat located in Hungary or a natural person with a permanent residence in Hungary. This is a frequently asked question, thus it is important to clarify that members of the company, its management and supervisory board members are not allowed to perform such a function. This means that if the only member of the company is a foreign entity, its delivery agent cannot be the company’s managing director, even if he or she has Hungarian nationality and residence.

The function of the delivery agent is to receive and deliver certain documents (e.g., court/authority documents) addressed to the foreign person. The reason for this is obviously the difficulty and cost of delivering documents abroad, which the authorities/courts do not want to bear. In the case of a delivery agent, the law provides for a presumption as to the date of delivery: the foreign person is presumed to have knowledge of the document on the 15th day following the day on which it was duly delivered to the delivery agent.

It can therefore be seen that the task of the delivery agent is important and crucial, as he/she often has to forward notices, requests to foreign addressees with tight deadlines, the failure to comply with which may entail serious legal consequences.

Tax identification number

Although few people are aware of it, since 2018, the executive officer of the company, or in certain cases its member or shareholder, who does not have a tax identification number, is required to request one from the National Tax and Customs Office.

It is often the case, for example, that the foreign managing director performs his/her position on the basis of a free-of-charge mandate agreement, in which case no taxable income is generated in Hungary. In such cases, the absence of a tax identification number does not necessarily arise from a tax viewpoint. However, companies are obliged to use electronic communication, via Company Gate. The managing director(s) can register a Company Gate on the basis of their existing Client Gate access, which requires the Hungarian tax identification number.

The prominent role of e-signatures

There is no doubt that with the increasing use of electronic signatures processes are becoming faster, more convenient and more efficient for all of us. This is even more true in case of companies with a foreign person(s). If, for example, the company has foreign members and managing directors, even from different countries, signing certain documents can take weeks and incur unnecessary costs (e.g., courier services, travel, notarization). With e-signatures, however, this time can be reduced to minutes or even seconds, as it takes just a few clicks to place 1 signature and there are no associated costs beyond providing the e-signature.

In legal procedures, such as company proceedings, it is also possible for the legal representative to identify the signatories online, also within a few minutes, saving additional time and costs.

It is therefore worth considering the use of electronic signatures, which can be a convenient, time- and cost-effective solution, and can have the same legal effect as a physical signature.

Photo source: pexels.com, Kampus Production

Special rules in case of foreign founder(s) and/or managing director(s) Read More »

Capital difficulties and their possible remedies in case of limited liability companies

Corporate law, News / / ,

Reading time: 4 minutes

 

The preparation and adoption of the annual accounts each year is an important step in the operation of a company as it clearly shows the results of the previous financial year. Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code (“Civil Code“) provides for a number of capital requirements and the obligation to intervene to remedy them for the purposes of protection of creditors. In our article below, we will examine the possible cases of undercapitalization and the legal solutions available, focusing on the rules governing limited liability companies.

Cases of undercapitalization

The Civil Code defines four cases, when the members are obliged to intervene and provide additional necessary funds or decide on appropriate restructuring of the capital structure. These are, in summary, the following:

  • the company’s equity capital has fallen below the minimum amount of registered capital laid down by law
    • an LLC can be established with a minimum registered capital of HUF 3 million, therefore this case arises if the equity capital is less than HUF 3 million
  • the company’s equity capital has fallen to half of the registered capital due to losses
    • with regard to the case of undercapitalization above, this can only arise if the registered capital exceeds the minimum amount, so for example its amount is HUF 10 million. In this case the members shall intervene, when the equity capital is HUF 5 million, or less
  • the company is threatened with insolvency or has stopped making payments
    • threat of insolvency is a situation where the directors of a company foresee, or with reasonable diligence should foresee, that the entity will not be able to meet its obligations as they fall due
  • the company’s assets do not cover its debts
    • this is the case when the company’s debts (e.g. debt, loans from members, other claims against the company) exceed the company’s total assets.

Obligation to intervene

In the event of undercapitalization, the Civil Code imposes specific obligations on both the managing director and the members.

The managing director shall without delay convene the members’ meeting (sole member) or initiate the decision of the general meeting without holding a meeting in order to take the necessary measures.

Members shall then decide on a solution to the situation and the adopted measures shall be implemented within 3 months. If the undercapitalization is due to the fact that the company’s equity capital dropped to half of the registered capital due to losses, and the members are unable to eliminate this within 3 month, the company’s registered capital must be reduced.

Possible actions by members

Members can remedy the cases of undercapitalization in several ways, as follows:

  • supplementary payment
    • in the event of authorization in the articles of association, the general meeting may impose a supplementary payment obligation on the members to cover losses
    • in addition to the authorization, the articles of association must specify the maximum amount of supplementary payment that members may be required to pay, as well as the frequency with which such payments may be imposed. If these conditions are not met, supplementary payment may not be made even with the support of the general meeting
    • in connection with the supplementary payment, it must be stated that its amount does not increase the financial contribution of the members. The supplementary payment may only be used to cover losses and, as a general rule, any unused supplementary payment shall be returned to the members
  • reduction of capital
    • in this case the members reduce the registered capital of the company, which entails a reduction in the member(s)’ business quotas;
    • it is important to note that this can only happen if the original registered capital exceeds the minimum value of the registered capital set by law, i.e. HUF 3 million
  • to provide equity capital by other means
    • it is clear that, compared to the previous measures, this is an open option, i.e. it is not possible to define in a taxonomy exactly what actions may be appropriate in this regard;
    • such possible solution for example: granting/cancelling loan by the members, assumption of (intra-group) debt from the company. However, it is also important to consider the tax implications of these possibilities
  • transformation, merger, division and dissolution without legal succession
    • if the members do not decide on supplementary payment, reduction of the capital, provision of equity by other means, the members must decide on transformation, merger, division or dissolution without legal succession
    • of course, there is no obstacle to members taking such a decision immediately, if they so wish and if their other conditions for such decision are met

Summary

As can be seen from the above, there are a number of options available to restore the limited liability company’s capital position. Which of these options is the most appropriate cannot be generally determined, as it is always necessary to look at the specific company, its characteristics and the underlying causes of undercapitalization on a case-by-case basis, and to identify which measures offer a real long-term solution.

Image source: Mikhail Nilov, pexels.com

Capital difficulties and their possible remedies in case of limited liability companies Read More »

5 misconceptions about the general terms and conditions (“GTC”)

Commercial Law, News, Trade affairs / / ,

Reading time: 5 minutes

In everyday life and when concluding contracts, we often encounter the concept of general terms and conditions, or GTC for short, yet they are often overlooked. The primary function of GTCs is to simplify the contracting process by providing a framework for recurring, template-like provisions that can be uniformly applicable to all contracting parties (e.g., performance deadlines, invoicing rules, dispute resolution mechanisms, or the choice of governing law in the case of a telephone subscription). As a result, individual agreements between the parties can remain concise and focused, containing only the specific terms – such as the parties’ details, the precise description of the product or service, and any deviations from the GTCs.

Pursuant to Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code (“Civil Code“), contractual provisions that are determined in advance, unilaterally, by one party without the involvement of the other party are considered GTS. We would like to point out that these provisions only become part of the specific contract if the applying party allows the other party to become familiar with them prior to the conclusion of the contract and the other party expressly or implicitly accepts them.

However, there are a number of misconceptions about GTCs in the public perception, which we would like to clarify in this article.

  1. Only a document named “GTC” qualifies as GTC

The first common misconception is that only documents labelled “GTC” can be considered GTC. However, the scope, form, method of recording, or the fact that the terms and conditions are included in the specific contract or appear separately from it are irrelevant for the purposes of classification as GTC. For example, an announcement or business regulations, or even a unilateral statement, may qualify as GTC if it complies with the definition of the Civil Code. In other words, whether something qualifies as GTC or not must be examined and assessed in terms of content, not form.

  1. It is not possible to deviate from the GTC

It is a common misconception that the GTC is a kind of “take it or leave it” agreement, i.e., that they must be accepted in their entirety and cannot be deviated from. The GTC can only become part of the contract with the consent of the other party, and furthermore, individual agreements between the parties may deviate from certain terms of the GTC. If the parties agree on a certain condition (e.g., the amount of the late payment penalty), the individually negotiated condition becomes part of the legal relationship between the parties, not the relevant provision of the GTC.

  1. General Terms and Conditions cannot be applied in parallel

A common misconception regarding GTCs is that only one party’s GTCs can be applicable in a contractual relationship. In practice, especially in B2B relationships, it often happens that both contracting parties have GTCs that they wish to apply in their relationship with each other. Of course, the partieshave the opportunity to do so.. At the same time, an important question arises as to which GTCs should be considered applicable in the event of the simultaneous application of two GTCs, especially in the case of conflicting provisions, and how their terms and conditions can be reconciled.

According to the Civil Code, if the provisions of the GTCs conflict with each other in terms of their essential content, no contract is concluded between the parties. If there is a conflict between the two GTCs, but the difference does not affect an essential element of the contract, the contract is concluded between the parties, and the non-conflicting provisions of the GTCs also become part of the contract. In the event that there is no conflict between the two GTCs, both GTCs will form part of the contract.

Although the Civil Code basically regulates the possibility and manner of applying parallel GTCs, it is easy to see that this involves a number of uncertainties that may give rise to disputes over interpretation (e.g., what constitutes an essential condition, a contradiction, or a practice that deviates from market standards). In order to avoid these uncertainties, it is highly recommended that the parties thoroughly review each other’s GTCs during the contract negotiation process and properly reconcile their contents.

  1. The GTC may be amended unilaterally at any time by the party applying them

As mentioned in the introduction, a pre-condition for the application of the GTC is that the contracting partner has the opportunity to become familiar with the GTC and then accept its contents. The explicit purpose of this provision is to enable the contracting partner to familiarize themselves with the conditions that are binding upon itself. For this reason, the Civil Code also stipulates that the drafter of the general terms and conditions has a separate obligation to provide information if they wish to amend the GTC or any of its provisions. This is because the amended provision only becomes part of the contract if the other party accepts it, at least by implied conduct. This information is particularly important because the amendment may result in the other party refusing to accept it and thus terminating the contractual relationship.

  1. Any contractual terms, even those that deviate from general or previously applied practice, may be included in the GTC without restriction

GTCs, especially in the case of contracts concluded with consumers, are often accepted without the contracting parties having thoroughly familiarized themselves with their content. Although this behavior cannot be attributed to the party applying the GTCs, it can easily lead to abuse of rights.

For this reason, the party applying the GTC must specifically inform the other party of any general contractual terms that differ significantly from the provisions of the law or that differ in any way from the usual contractual practice established between the parties. An example of the first case is the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Budapest-Capital, which stated that the stipulation of a one-year limitation period in the case of an insurance relationship differs significantly from the five-year limitation period stipulated by law. Accordingly, the clause only becomes part of the insurance contract if the insurer expressly draws the contracting party’s attention to it and the contracting party makes an express statement of acceptance in full knowledge of this.

Summary

The everyday presence of GTCs greatly facilitates the conclusion of contracts, but their use can also carry hidden risks. The provisions of the GTCs become part of the contract in the same way as the separately negotiated terms and conditions, so it is extremely important that the parties are aware of the content of it as well. We would like to point out that the contracting party has the option to initiate the amendment of disadvantageous GTC provisions and to deviate from them by means of an individual agreement. Accordingly, it is advisable to exercise increased caution when applying GTCs.

Image source: Kampus Production, pexels.com

5 misconceptions about the general terms and conditions (“GTC”) Read More »

New provisions on foreign direct investment

Corporate law, News / / , ,

In 2022 the Government issued the Government Decree 561/2022 (XII. 23.) on the different application of certain provisions necessary for the economic protection of business companies in Hungary during the state of emergency („Decree”) under which it imposed restrictions on foreign investors acquiring ownership in strategically important companies owned by domestic investors, citing the crisis caused by the Covid pandemic. At the end of June, Government Decree 163/2025 (VI. 23) (“Amendment“) was published in the Hungarian Gazette No. 75, further tightening the rules on foreign direct investments.

A significant change in the regulations will be brought about by Act L of 2025 on the elevation to the status of acts of the emergency decrees issued in view of the armed conflict in Ukraine (“Act“), which will repeal the Decree with effect from August 19, 2025. It’s worth noting that at the same time, the general parts of the current regulations will be regulated at a statutory level, with some changes and additions. In addition to the currently effective Decree, our article summarizes the most important provisions of the Act applicable from mid-August and the related changes.

Scope of the regulation

In accordance with the regulations, all transactions involving limited liability companies, private share companies and public limited companies registered in Hungary and operating in strategic sectors must be reported to the Minister of National Economy, as the minister responsible for the domestic economy (“Minister”) if it would result in the acquisition of ownership or a certain degree of influence by third-country nationals or, in certain cases, by nationals of other Member States of the European Union, other states party to the EEA Agreement or the Swiss Confederation, where the value of the legal transaction reaches or exceeds HUF 350 million.

In addition, notification to the Minister and acknowledgement thereof are also required for foreign investors or companies over which foreign investors have direct or indirect majority influence to acquire operational rights necessary for the continuation of activities in strategic sectors. Strategic companies include, among others, pharmaceutical manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade, motion picture production, tobacco product manufacturing, temporary employment agencies, construction of residential and non-residential buildings within the construction industry, manufacturing of machinery and equipment, computer programming, consultancy and related activities.

The notification must be submitted to the Minister within 10 days of the conclusion of the legal transaction concerned.

Legal transactions include not only the sale of shares or stocks, but also any acquisition of ownership rights by way of transfer, including contributions in kind, transfer of ownership without any consideration, capital increase, transformation, merger, division and even the establishment of rights (e.g. convertible bonds, beneficial interest).

Natural person or companies that fail to comply with their reporting obligation may be subject to an administrative fine of up to twice the value of the transaction, provided that they are not subject to criminal liability.

After examining the notification, the Minister shall prohibit or acknowledge the legal transaction concerned. A prohibitive decision may be taken in the following cases:

  • if the acquisition of ownership, the acquisition of the bond, the acquisition of the right to usufruct, or the acquisition of the right to operate by the notifying party would harm or endanger the national interests, public security, or public order of Hungary, or if there is a possibility that this could occur;
  • the notifying party is directly or indirectly not controlled by the government of a Member State of the European Union, including state bodies or armed forces, either through its ownership structure or through significant financing;
  • the reporting entity has been involved in activities threatening security or public order in any Member State of the European Union,
  • or there is a serious risk that the reporting entity will engage in activities constituting a criminal offense.

Any legal transaction or corporate resolution that is contrary to a prohibitive decision shall be deemed null and void. The party affected by the prohibition decision may not be listed in the company register or share register, nor may it exercise any rights based on the legal transaction.

Rules applicable from 24 June 2025

  • Longer administrative time limits

As a result of the Amendment, the Minister must decide within 45 working days of the notification whether the circumstances for the prohibition continue to exist. In order to clarify the circumstances, the Minister may extend the period available for the investigation by a further three occasions, each time by 30 working days, thus extending the total period by up to four to five months.

  • Extension of the State’s right of pre-emption

With this amendment, the Government has significantly expanded its preemptive rights. The State may exercise its right of pre-emption through MNV Zrt. or another organization designated by it, under the same conditions as those specified in the relevant legal transaction, within 90 days of the date of the prohibitive decision. This right applies not only to strategic companies engaged in solar power generation activities, but to all companies in sectors of strategic importance.

Rules applicable from 19 August 2025

As mentioned in the introduction, pursuant to the decision of the legislator, the Decree will cease to be effective on August 18, 2025, and certain provisions will be regulated at the statutory level. The differences between the Decree and the Act are summarized below.

  • Shorter administrative time limits

Under the Act, the Minister must decide within 30 working days of the notification whether the circumstances for prohibition exist. An important element of statutory regulation is that the Minister has no opportunity to extend the deadline for investigation. With these changes, the legislator returns to the regulation that was in force prior to the June amendment.

  • Restriction of the state’s right of pre-emption

The extension of the right of pre-emption is also excluded from the provisions of the Act, meaning that, going forward, the State will not have a right of pre-emption, except in the case of strategic companies engaged in activities related to solar power plants.

  • Extended deadline for pre-emptive rights in the qualified sector

Under the Act, in the qualified energy sector, the time limit related to the State’s pre-emption right exercised through MNV Zrt. is increased – in deviation from the regulatory provisions – from 60 working days to 90 working days, counted from the date of receipt of the notification sent to the notifying party. At the same time, the response period of the minister responsible for energy policy in this matter is also doubled, i.e., increased from 15 working days to 30 working days.

  • Possibility of contesting the decision

From August 19, 2025, prohibitive decisions may be challenged in administrative court proceedings in numerous cases. For example, the prohibitive decision concerned may be contested if the Minister assessed incorrectly that the conditions establishing the notification obligation specified in the Act were fulfilled.  This right can still only be exercised at the Budapest-Capital Regional Court. Another new feature is that immediate legal protection is now also available in the event of an appeal. However, it is questionable whether the provision of further legal remedies in itself influences foreign investors during the stage of considering the structure of their investments.

Summary

Given that, according to our current knowledge, the provisions of the Act – will be applicable until December 31, 2026, foreign investors and Hungarian companies should take into account that the State will continue to have very widespread rights during transactions related to company acquisitions (M&A). It can be considered a positive step forward that, on the one hand, the scope of the State’s right of pre-emption is being narrowed and, on the other hand, the possibility of legal remedy against prohibitive decisions is being introduced. However, in overall, Hungarian regulations remain strict compared to international standards. It is therefore advisable to carry out a classification at the planning stage of the transaction, and to consider the possibility of state intervention in the letter of intent and the contract.

Image source: Andrea Piacquadio, pexels.com

New provisions on foreign direct investment Read More »

Changing company law rules

Company groups, Corporate law, Medium-sized companies, News, Start-ups / / , , , , ,

As of 1 January 2022, the Civil Code has been amended on several points. In this article, we have summarised the issues that affect our clients the most.

Regulations affecting the organisation

Changes affecting the supervisory board
Although at first glance it seems that the previous provision on the supervisory board, that not less than a majority of votes may be required, has been deleted, it is still valid under the general rules and it is important that the companies concerned continue to comply with this rule.
A clarification has been made in the legislation: where the supervisory board member is a legal person, a natural person must be appointed to effectively perform the duties.

Repeated meeting of the supreme body
The quorum of the decision-making body shall be constituted when more than half of the votes that may be cast are represented by a person entitled to vote. If the quorum is not present at the general meeting of members of the limited liability company (Kft.) or the general meeting of the private company limited by shares (Zrt.), a new meeting shall be held. In the past, the Civil Code provided for a mandatory minimum and maximum period of time between the initial and the reconvened meeting, which was not practical and made decision-making unnecessarily difficult.
To remedy this, as of 1 January, the statutory time limits are discretionary, i.e. a repeated general meeting may be called for a date other than the date set in the Civil Code.

Composition of the Board of Directors of a Zrt.
The chairman of the Board of Directors of the company has so far been elected by its members. However, as from the first day of the year, this power of decision is only conferred on the members of the Board of Directors if the General Meeting has not exercised it.

Changes concerning limited liability companies

Deferred cash contribution
Although the wording of the legislation changes significantly, it mainly clarifies an objective that has been achieved in practice so far: members may make a cash contribution out of their dividends. Thus, if a member has an outstanding cash contribution, the dividend will first “make up” for this and, if there is still a dividend fund after the settlement, the members may decide on the actual payment of the dividend. It is important to underline that the new rule will only apply to company proceedings commenced after 1 January 2022, so companies applying the previous, partially more favourable rules will not have to change their articles of association due to the amendment of the Civil Code.

One member – several shares
A change is that the Civil Code now states that a member can own more than one share (a so called quota) in a company. Another new rule is that splitting is possible at any time with the consent of the general meeting. The new provision may be of importance in cases where there is an encumbrance (e.g. pledge, other option) on each share, as it will now be possible to separate the obligations on the shares, even though they are concentrated in one company.

Undercapitalised status
One of the rules on undercapitalisation is that if a company’s equity capital falls below the subscribed capital defined for the company form for two consecutive financial years, the supreme body must decide on a capital replacement or, failing that, on a transformation, dissolution without legal success or merger. Such an undercapitalised situation typically occurs when a company has a high level of registered capital or has been making large losses for a long period of time. The clarified wording makes it clear that in all cases two full financial years covering twelve months must be taken into account to determine the undercapitalised status, so in case of so-called ‘split’ financial years, the first shorter financial year need not be examined in such context.

Additional payment
An additional payment is typically a legal instrument used to temporarily resolve a capital shortage situation. It allows the owners of a company to inject capital into the company specifically to restore solvency. Until now, the capital injection were regulated at the rules of limited liability companies, but from 1 January 2022, general and limited partnerships, and companies limited by shares will be able to use this option. The amended text stipulates that the supreme body may decide that the additional payments not necessary to make up for the loss do not have to be repaid to the members – in a decision which, in our view, can be taken or even modified even after the additional payment has been ordered. It is a reasonable new provision that in case of a one-person limited liability company, no amendment to the deed of foundation is required to make the decision to make a top-up payment.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, feel free to contact us.

 CLVPartners news

Changing company law rules Read More »

Amendment of the Civil Code – managing directors

Company groups, Corporate law, Employment, labour law, Medium-sized companies, News, Start-ups / / , , , ,

Until now, the company and the managing director were jointly and severally liable towards third persons for non-contractual damages caused by the managing director in his executive capacity. Pursuant to the new provisions, only then will the managing director be jointly and severally liable with the company against third persons, if he has caused the damages wilfully in his capacity as managing director.

Furthermore, the amendment clarifies that the managing director’s liability for wilfully caused damage extends not only to non-contractual damages but also to contractual damages (until now contractual damages could only be claimed from the company, and not from the managing director).

 

Amendment of the Civil Code – managing directors Read More »

CLVPartners
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.