Challenging & Executing Arbitral Awards in Hungary

We have already covered arbitration regulation in Hungary & requirements for initiating arbitral proceedings in this jurisdiction. In this piece, we’ll be looking into the execution & challenging of arbitration awards in Hungary.

Interpreting Decisions

Under Hungarian legislation, arbitration courts are authorized to rectify:

• misspelt names (typos included);
• mistakes in calculations & numbers; 
• any printing mistakes.

There’s a 30-day deadline for submitting requests for the above corrections, providing the parties do not agree otherwise.

There’s also a 30-day deadline for submitting a request for interpreting or supplementing an award in Hungary. Arbitration courts may grant such a request if they find it justified.

Hungary: Appealing Arbitral Awards

There’s no appealing of arbitral awards in courts. There’s a 60-day deadline for submitting requests for the revoking of arbitral awards in Hungary. Below are the conditions under which awards can be revoked:

• parties to arbitration agreements aren’t legal personalities;
• arbitration agreements aren’t valid;
• parties weren’t informed of upcoming proceedings & failed to duly deliver their case;
• arbitral tribunal’s composition or procedure are in conflict with parties’ agreement or arbitration legislation;
• dispute’s subject constitutes no ground for resolving a dispute through arbitration in Hungary;
• the court’s verdict contradicts the country’s state policy.

Arbitral awards are binding & have the same effect as binding judgments. Courts may decline to apply arbitral awards if the dispute’s subject isn’t subject to arbitration as per Hungarian legislation or awards contradict Hungary’s state policy.

Because the country’s a signatory to international agreements, parties aren’t required to follow any separate procedure for recognizing awards delivered by foreign arbitration courts in Hungary. Having foreign arbitral awards enforced in Hungary requires submitting their originals or certified copies to courts. 

Conclusion