A new chapter in civil procedure?

A new chapter in civil procedure?

Will the court compensate the parties if there are delays? Will legal disputes be decided without a hearing? Will the hearings be livestreamed? – In her article, dr. Lili Horváth, junior associate at act legal Hungary, analyses the proposed amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. The latest expected amendments to Act CXXX of 2016 on the Code of Civil Procedure are included in a comprehensive draft omnibus justice bill. Among other changes, the draft introduces a solution that is new to civil procedure but not unfamiliar in administrative litigation: the simplified trial. The legislator may also introduce the institution of automatic pecuniary compensation.

Pecuniary compensation for exceeding procedural deadlines

A long-standing criticism within legal circles is that while parties to a lawsuit and their legal representatives face strict consequences for missing procedural deadlines – such as the procedural act becoming null and void and producing no legal effect – the same does not apply to the courts themselves, whose delays typically go unpunished. Admittedly, this claim has never been entirely accurate. In cases of undue delay, parties have had the opportunity to file complaints or seek pecuniary compensation through non-contentious proceedings. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that court delays have not triggered any automatic legal consequences. This would change under the proposed amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, which introduces an automatic consequence for missed judicial deadlines. According to the proposal, in the event of a court failing to meet a procedural deadline, the parties would automatically be entitled to pecuniary compensation starting from the day following the missed deadline. The amount would equal 1.5% of the statutory minimum wage per day, currently 4,362 HUF. But will this new regulation truly reduce the length of litigation? Or, on the contrary, will it impose yet another layer of administrative burden that might further delay the substantive resolution of cases?

Justice on the Fast Lane? – What the Simplified Trial Brings to Civil Litigation
Parties opting for the simplified procedure do not have to wait in prolonged uncertainty regarding the outcome of their legal dispute: the court must issue a first-instance judgment within approximately two months of the claim being filed. But how can this expedited form of procedure be used? The parties must agree – already at the time of concluding their contract – that any potential legal disputes will be settled through a simplified trial. It is important to note, however, that the procedure cannot be applied to certain types of cases, such as personal status-related proceedings (including matrimonial cases), labour disputes, and matters involving consumer legal relationships. The primary advantage of the simplified procedure is, without question, its speed. In addition, the court fee is reduced: only 70% of the standard procedural fee must be paid. However, speed comes at a price.
The simplified trial follows stricter procedural rules, which may impose additional obligations on the parties or even limit certain rights. For example, if a party intends to rely on an expert opinion as evidence, it must be attached to the statement of claim at the time of filing, submitting it later is not permitted. Moreover, witness testimony is not allowed, as the procedure is conducted without a hearing, which also means that no oral motions can be made. In addition, legal representation is mandatory, which may impose further costs on the parties.

So, who might benefit from choosing this procedure? In simpler contractual disputes – especially where a quick decision is crucial – the simplified trial can save both time and money. However, it is important to keep in mind that if the parties agree to use this form of procedure, they cannot later initiate a payment order procedure for claims covered by the agreement. This is significant, as payment order proceedings are often effective in preventing litigation altogether.

The audience has gone online
Modernization does not leave the judiciary untouched: under the proposed amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, it will be possible to follow the most important and interesting trials from home as a member of the audience. According to the new regulation, up to 100 participants can register for each hearing, with mandatory identity verification. However, personal status-related cases – such as matrimonial or child custody matters – will remain closed to the public. The effort to allow broader public insight into the functioning of the judiciary is commendable in itself. Not only does this increase transparency, but it can also enhance citizens’ legal awareness, after all, live court hearings provide real-life examples that teach about law, procedure, and legal reasoning.
However, the expansion of public access may also bring unforeseen consequences. For instance, it is unclear how the “digital audience” will affect the participants of the trial, the parties, their legal representatives, and even the judicial panel itself. The sudden presence of a public audience might cause some to hold back, while others may become overly emboldened.
Ensuring proper oversight may also be problematic: it will be virtually impossible to guarantee who actually watches the livestream. For example, a witness might attend a hearing as a viewer, even though, in the interest of a fair evidentiary process, they should not be present. Witnesses are excluded from the courtroom prior to their testimony precisely to prevent their statements from being influenced by what they hear. The goal of making the judiciary more transparent is undoubtedly forward-looking. However, questions remain about the cost of this transparency and the safeguards that must be in place to achieve it.
The presented provisions will undoubtedly bring a new dimension to the practice of civil litigation; however, it remains to be seen how they will ultimately reshape the functioning of the judiciary in the long run.