How should liability be interpreted in complex chains of transactions? Is the intermediary commission refundable?

If the invoice is not issued by the statutory deadline, does the subsequent issuance of the invoice constitute a delay or a failure to comply? What is the position of the Kúria on this matter?

Supreme Court Decision No. BH2025.211 serves as an important warning for every company: the provisions of the Civil Code on the law of obligations cannot always be deviated from, even if the parties expressly agree to do so in a contract.

Can those who did not participate as clients in an administrative proceeding initiate legal action against the decision? When can their lawsuit be successful?

The amendment to the Civil Code adopted in December 2025 will enter into force on 1 March 2026. The purpose of the amendment is to address issues identified on the basis of more than a decade of practical experience in the application of the law, thereby enhancing legal certainty. In addition to several other areas of law, the amendment also clarifies and supplements the rules of company law in a number of respects, which we review below.

In recent years, the approach of competition authorities in the European Union to the functioning of the labour market has changed radically. What was previously seen primarily as an HR matter has now become one of the key areas of traditional cartel enforcement.

In practice, the GDPR’s information obligations must be interpreted strictly, and any business using surveillance technologies - especially cameras - reckon with significant compliance risks.

A recent decision of the Kúria has clarified what happens when a company’s executive brings a disputed corporate resolution before the courts, but his or her mandate expires in the meantime.

From our article, you can learn how a property owner can apply to have their zártkert property registered in the land registry as land withdrawn from agricultural cultivation, and what advantages this reclassification offers.

The essence of the European Court of Justice’s ruling in the Tuleka case is that if defective performance of a contractual service is so serious that it essentially frustrates the purpose of the contract, the consumer is entitled to a full refund, even if certain elements were formally performed by the service provider.