Under Article 35(2) of the Patent Act the patentee may, in addition to other remedies, claim damages in accordance with the rules of civil liability. Similar provisions can be found in all other intellectual property laws of Hungary. Therefore, Article 355 of the Civil Code is the legal authority determining the factors to be considered in establishing the amount of compensation. It reads as follows: "(1) The person liable for the damage shall restore the original state, and if it is not possible, or if the damaged person does not wish so for a well founded reason, he shall compensate for the pecuniary and non pecuniary damage of the damaged person. "(2) Damage shall be compensated for in cash, unless the circumstances justify compensation in kind. Compensation in kind may be especially justified if the object of compensation for damages is produced by the person causing the damage, too, or it is otherwise at his disposal. "(3) An annuity can also be stipulated as compensation. Usually, annuity shall be ordered if compensation is aimed at the support or supplementing the support of the damaged person or his relative entitled to be supported by him. "(4) Under the title of compensation for damages, the decrease in value of the property of the damaged person and pecuniary advantage lost due to the circumstance having caused the damage, as well as the indemnity or costs necessary for lessening or eliminating the pecuniary and non pecuniary damages sustained by the damaged person shall be compensated for."

Under Article 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the costs of proceedings are all costs incurred either in or out of court in relation to the practical and bona fide conducting of a suit by the parties (costs of preliminary inquiries and correspondence, official fees of proceedings, authorization, etc., fees of witnesses and experts, remuneration of interpreters, costs of on the spot trial and inspection, etc.). Disbursements and remuneration of the counsel of a party must also be added to the costs of proceedings. Under Articles 78 and 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defeated party must refund the costs of litigation of the prevailing party. The court determines the amount of costs of litigation taking into consideration the data provided and duly certified by a party. Such costs, in accordance with Article 45.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, include appropriate attorney's fees. An additional provision can be found in Article 95(3) of the Patent Act which provides that the expenses and fees of the patent attorney representing a party are to be added to the costs of proceeding. However, it belongs to the discretionary power of the court, whether the total amount of the invoice of the counsel of the right holder (the total retainer fee stipulated by the right holder and his counsel) will be regarded as a justified expense. Normally, a maximum of 5% of the total amount disputed or in extremely complicated cases 5% + 50% thereof, i.e. 7.5% is awarded as a justified counsel's fee. This calculation is based upon the mandatory rule (Article 1) of the Decree of the Minister of Justice No. 12/1991 (IX. 29.) IM on legal counsels' expenses. It is to be noted that the actual costs (telecommunication, photocopying, travel, accommodation, typing and similar miscellaneous costs) paid in connection with the legal counsel's activity are to be reimbursed on top of the fee on the basis of a detailed account of the said costs to be filed by the legal counsel (Article 2). In practice, Hungarian counsels frequently neglect this obligation, they file no account of costs, i.e. they do not use the possibility to have the actual costs reimbursed on top of their fee.

The extent to which the amount of damages have been taken into account is closely correlated with the economical environment where the infringing activity took place. Since 1 January 1996 damages awarded by the courts are adequate compensation for the injury that the right holder has suffered as set out in the response to question 24. The Hungarian civil procedures are consistent with Article 45 of the TRIPS Agreement.

Article 329/A of the Criminal Code (Act No. IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code) qualifies violation of authors' rights and neighbouring rights as a crime in the following manner: "(1) That person causing financial prejudice by violating the right of the author on his literary, scientific or artistic work, or that of the performing artist on his performance, or that of the producer on his sound recording, or that of the radio or television broadcaster on his program, shall be deemed to commit a misdemeanour, and shall be imprisoned up to two years, punished to do work for the benefit of the public, or fined. "(2) The penalty for a felony shall be imprisonment up to three years, if the violation of authors' rights and neighbouring rights: (a) causes considerable financial prejudice (over Ft 2 000 000); (b) is committed in a businesslike manner. "(3) The penalty shall be imprisonment up to 5 years, if the violation of authors' rights and neighbouring rights is committed by causing particularly great financial prejudice (over Ft 6 000 000). "(4) That person, who commits the violation of authors' and neighbouring rights recklessly, shall be punished for a misdemeanour with imprisonment up to one year, or with work to be done for the benefit of the public or with fine." These provisions of the Criminal Code entered into force on 15 May 1993. Furthermore, under Article 329 of the Criminal Code, an infringement of rights to intellectual creations is committed when a person makes the false impression that he owns the intellectual creation, invention, innovation or industrial design of another person, and causes thereby pecuniary disadvantage to the entitled party, or, misusing his job at an economic organization, makes the utilization or assertion of an intellectual creation, invention, innovation or industrial design of another person dependent on his being given a share in the fee derived, or in the profit or gains originating therefrom. This sort of infringement is a felony and is punishable with imprisonment up to three years. As a result of an amendment to the Criminal Code in 1994, false indication of goods also amounts to a crime, which can be punished by imprisonment up to three years. Under the Criminal Code, seizure and forfeiture (confiscation) is possible in all cases. The basic rules are the following: the property must be confiscated which has been used or designed as an instrument for the perpetration of a crime, if it is owned by the perpetrator, and also otherwise, if its possession endangers public security; or which came into being through the perpetration of a crime; or which has been received by the perpetrator of a crime from the owner or from another person with the owner's consent, in return for the perpetration. That printed press material in which crime is realized must also be confiscated. In cases defined by the law, that property must be confiscated in respect of which the crime has been perpetrated, or which was the object of a given pecuniary advantage. In the case of violation of authors' rights and neighbouring rights, the tangible property owned by the offender in respect of which the offence has been committed, must be confiscated. Confiscation admissible even when the tangible property is not owned by the offender, but the owner has previously been aware of the commission of the offence (Article 329/A (5) of the Criminal Code). Under Article 296 of the Criminal Code false indication of goods is a crime: the person who markets goods of considerable quantity without the consent of a competitor with such characteristic external appearance, packaging or name from which the competitor or his goods having characteristic, features can be recognized, commits a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment up to three years. Furthermore, deception of consumers is committed when the person who in the interest of increasing the marketability of goods states before large publicity untrue facts in a way suitable for deception in respect of essential features of the goods, or gives information suitable for deception about an essential feature of the goods. It is a misdemeanour and punishable by imprisonment up to two years, labour in the public interest or a fine. For the purposes of applying these provisions the following qualify as essential features of goods: their composition, usability, their influence on health or environment, their treatment, origin, whether they meet legal requirements, standards or habitual requirements for such goods, as well as if the utilization of the goods requires the realization of conditions essentially differing from habitual ones.

Hungary has a "dualistic system" which means that international treaties must be promulgated in order to become part of Hungary's internal legal system. Under Article 7(1) of the Hungarian Constitution, the legal system of Hungary ensures the harmony between the international obligations undertaken by Hungary and the internal legislation. There is no provision in the Constitution which would preclude the self-executing effect of the provisions of international treaties. The Hungarian intellectual property legislation is in full compliance with the relevant international treaties. It is for this reason that the question whether a provision of an international treaty may be self-executive and invoked before the courts as a rule having precedence over national intellectual property legislation has never arisen in the Hungarian legal practice.

In Hungary, Government Decree No. 128/1997 (VII. 24.) Korm. on the measures in the field of customs administration procedures against infringements of intellectual property rights establishes the special customs procedures applicable in the case of infringement of copyright and neighbouring rights, geographical indications and trademarks. The Decree entered into force on 1 August 1997. It contains provision on the suspension of release of infringing goods, either upon the request of the right holder or as an ex officio action of the customs authorities in customs procedure. The Decree is in full harmony with the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. According to Section 5(5) of the Decree, the entitled person must prove within ten working days of receiving the notification that he has taken an action for infringement of trademark, geographical label or infringement of copyright or neighbouring rights, and has taken legal proceeding for an interim measure to be taken. This deadline may be prolonged by ten working days in a justified case. If the right holder has not proven his application for an interim measure the customs authority shall forthwith notify the person submitting the goods to customs clearance and following this, the customs goods shall be treated in accordance with the application of this latter person. At the same time it notifies the right holder about putting an end to the direct customs supervision.

Under Hungarian law, there are three kinds of procedures in which intellectual property rights can be enforced: civil procedures, customs administration procedures and criminal procedures. Civil procedures can be initiated in the case of the infringement of rights deriving from: - an invention or a patent (Articles 34 and 35 of Act No. XXXIII of 1995 on the Protection of Inventions by Patents, hereinafter referred to as the Patent Act); - a trademark or a geographical indication (Articles 27 and 110 of Act No. XI of 1997 on the Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications, hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Act); - an industrial design (Articles 10 and 11 of Decree Law of the Presidium of the Hungarian People's Republic No. 28 of 1978 on the Protection of Industrial Designs, hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Design Decree); - a topography of microelectronic semiconductor products (Article 10(2) of Act No. XXXIX of 1991 on the Protection of the Topography of Microelectronic Semiconductor Products, hereinafter referred to as the Topography Act); - copyright (Articles 52 and 53 of Act No. III of 1969 on Copyright, hereinafter referred to as the Copyright Act). Article 104(1) of the Patent Act, Article 95(1) of the Trademark Act, Article 20(2) of the Industrial Design Decree and Article 24(1) of the Topography Act provide that the Metropolitan Court has jurisdiction and exclusive competence in industrial property matters concerning infringements. As to copyright matters, it is not the Copyright Act but Article 23(1) of Act No. III of 1952 on Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure) which stipulates that county courts have jurisdiction (Article 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure). The Supreme Court is the court of second instance in industrial property and copyright matters as well. However, in respect of copyright litigation, it is to be noted that due to Guidance No. 286 of the Civil Senate of the Supreme Court, as amended by Guidance No. 290 binding all courts, claims of collecting societies, whether it is an exclusive right or a right to an equitable remuneration that is violated, are to be enforced before local (first instance) courts. (Claims by holders of neighbouring rights are not covered by the aforementioned guidance.) Pecuniary claims of collective administration organizations can be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, in the same way as any other claim for performance in cash not exceeding Ft 200 000, i.e. by requesting the court to pass a summary judgement. (A form is to be filled in by the complainant, and stamped by the court without hearing the case.) If the defendant files an objection (a quasi appeal) against the summary judgement, the same court has to hold a trial and hear the case. (The relevant provisions are Articles 313 323 of the Code of Civil Procedure.) Customs administration procedures can be applied for in respect of goods involving infringements of intellectual property rights deriving from trademark, geographical indication or copyright protection. Article 3(1) of Government Decree No. 128/1997. (VII. 24.) Korm. on Border Measures Applicable against Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights in Customs Administration Procedures (hereinafter referred to as the Border Measures Decree) provides that border measures by customs authorities can be applied for in order to prevent the release into free circulation of such goods. Initiating a customs administration procedure entails the institution of a civil action for infringement and also the application for a provisional measure to be ordered by the court (Article 5(4) of the Border Measures Decree). Criminal procedures can be initiated in the case of infringements constituting crimes under Act No. IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code). The three denominated crimes related to intellectual property rights in the Criminal Code are the following: - false indication of goods (Article 296) - infringement of rights to intellectual creations (Article 329 of the Criminal Code); and - violation of authors' rights and neighbouring rights (Article 329/A of the Criminal Code). Article 24 of Act No. I of 1973 on the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Criminal Procedure) provides that the local courts have jurisdiction, therefore the courts of second instance are the county courts (Article 20(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Note that there are no separate civil or criminal courts in Hungary, consequently the same courts may have both civil and criminal jurisdiction at a certain (local, provincial or national) level.

The Government of Hungary confirms that county courts have jurisdiction over claims of holders of neighbouring rights generally.

According to Article 86, subparagraph 1 of the Law No. LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair Market Practices and the Restriction of Competition the county courts have jurisdiction over procedures laid down by Articles 2 to 7. As Article 4 of the Law contains the prohibition of unauthorized disclosure, acquisition and use of undisclosed information, the above-mentioned courts shall proceed in such cases.

Civil procedures can be initiated by the institution of an action for infringement in the Metropolitan Court indicating the right to be enforced and the facts providing grounds thereof, also enclosing evidence for the latter (Article 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Appeals to the Supreme Court are to be filed with the Metropolitan Court within fifteen days following the communication of the decision, indicating to what extent and for what reasons the review of the first instance court's decision is requested (Articles 234 and 235 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Customs administration procedures can be initiated by the submission of either a specific or a general application to the competent customs authority. The application in writing has to meet specific criteria and the applicant must deposit a security and also, in the course of the customs proceedings, institute a civil action (Articles 3(1), 4(1), 5(4) and 8(1) of the Border Measures Decree). See also responses to questions 37 54. Criminal procedures can be initiated by reporting the crime to the inspecting authorities (e.g. police, public prosecutor), which can be done by any person (Articles 122(1) and 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ).

In accordance with Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a foreign applicant may, upon request of the defendant, be required to provide a security for the payment of the defendant's expenses. However, this provision is very seldom applied in intellectual property cases.

In the sphere of civil law, general principles such as the doctrine of acting in good faith and the doctrine prohibiting the abuse of rights can be mentioned as means available to prevent unlawfully initiated procedures. The Civil Code establishes those doctrines in Articles 4 and 5 in the following way: "4(1) In the course of the exercise of civil rights and the performance of obligations, parties shall act in accordance with the requirement of good faith (...). "5(1) The abuse of rights is prohibited by law. "5(2) Exercise of a right shall qualify as abuse of rights if it is directed to an aim irreconcilable with the social purpose of the right, especially if it leads to (...) harassment of persons, injury of their rights or legitimate interests, or the acquisition of unjust advantages." The doctrine of acting in good faith also appears in Article 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 120 provides a possibility for the courts to impose a fine up to Ft 50 000 on a party acting in bad faith. In addition, various other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure also raise obstacles to unlawful action, e.g. Article 121(1) requiring that the institution of an action should involve the indication of the facts providing grounds for the right to be enforced and also the enclosure of the necessary evidence thereof, especially documents verifying those facts. If a party does not meet those requirements when filing an action, the judge will give the submission back to that party for completion, fixing a short time-limit, the unsuccessful lapse of which will cause the rejection of the petition, i.e. the failure of taking the action (Article 95(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure). Article 95(2) requires the simultaneous payment of fees by parties submitting a petition. As to further financial consequences, under Article 78, the defeated party must refund the costs of the prevailing party and under Article 80(2) a party who is unsuccessful in certain acts or fails to meet a deadline or causes unnecessary costs in any other way cannot, under any circumstances, claim the refunding of its costs originating thereof. In respect of customs administration procedures, Article 3(4) of the Border Measures Decree lists the persons entitled to apply for such measures to the customs authorities, and under Article 4(1) an applicant must verify both the existence of the trademark, geographical indication or copyright protection and its entitlement to file the application. Articles 4(1) and 4(2) contain other specific criteria that must be met by the applicant, and a security must also be deposited at the customs authorities (Article 8(1) of the Border Measures Decree). If those requirements are not met, the application will be rejected and, therefore, no measures will be taken by the customs authorities (Article 5(2) of the Border Measures Decree). In the case of a successful application, the applicant must institute a civil action for infringement and apply to the competent court for a provisional measure and the applicant must also present sufficient evidence to support its claim (Article 5(4) of the Border Measures Decree). In criminal procedures, general principles such as the doctrine of the right of defense and the presumption of innocence (Articles 3 and 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) are applicable against abuse which can also be prevented, even before the case enters the court phase, by the inspecting authorities that are entitled to deny or to discontinue the investigation. The prosecutor may also omit to refer the case to the court or, during the court phase the prosecutor may drop the charge (Articles 127(1), 139(1), 145(2) and 170(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). In addition, false charge is a crime under Articles 233 236 of the Criminal Code. As to damages suffered because of an abuse, a general provision (Article 339(1) of the Civil Code) can be applied which provides that any person who unlawfully causes a damage is be obliged to give the injured party compensation for it. (See also our response to question 36.)

Costs of civil procedures: 6% of the case value but not less than Ft 5 000 and not more than Ft 750 000 in both the first and the second instances (Articles 42(1) and 46(1) of Act No. XCIII of 1990 on Official Fees). Costs of customs administration procedures: the amount of the security to be deposited is 5% of the value of the goods when that value can be established and Ft 60 000 per application per month when the value of the goods cannot be established (Article 8(2) of the Border Measures Decree). The initiation of a criminal procedure involves no costs for the person reporting the crime to the authorities. There are no documents used generally or officially to inform the public of such fees.

There are two kinds of time-limits established by Hungarian law for judicial and administrative proceedings. On the one hand, time-limits are established for courts or administrative bodies. On the other hand, time-limits are also set for the parties. As to the former, it is only customs administration procedures in which time-limits for the customs authorities apply. Provisions of the latter kind can be found not only in the Border Measures Decree but also in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the Code of Criminal Procedure some time-limits are established for the inspecting authorities and for the prosecutor as well. However, neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor the Code of Criminal Procedure contains any time-limit to be respected by courts in the course of their proceedings. Time-limits in customs administration procedures: - Article 5(1) of the Border Measures Decree establishes a time-limit of five working days following the filing date of the application for the customs authorities to render a decision on the merits of the case; - The applicant must verify within ten working days following the receipt of the decision by the customs authorities ordering the direct supervision of the infringing goods that a civil action for infringement has been instituted by the applicant, in which an application for a provisional measure by the court has been submitted. That time-limit can be extended by another ten working days when justified (Article 5(4) of the Border Measures Decree). Time-limits in criminal procedures: - The inspecting authorities must, based on the denouncement of the crime, decide on the commencement or refusal of the investigation within three days following the filing date of the denouncement. This time-limit can be extended, if circumstances so require, by fifteen plus fifteen plus thirty days by the heads of inspecting authorities (Article 126(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure); - A criminal investigation has to be terminated within two months following the ordering thereof. This time-limit may, in appropriate cases, be extended by two plus two months, and, after that, by the Director of Public Prosecutors (Article 131 of the Code of Criminal Procedure); - The inspecting authorities must forward the documentation to the prosecutor within eight days following the date of notice on the termination of the investigation (Article 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure); - The prosecutor must examine the documentation and accordingly decide on the continuation of the case within fifteen days. Under extraordinary circumstances, this time-limit can be extended by another fifteen days (Articles 145(2) and 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure); - In the court phase, the judge, within eight days following the submission of the documentation, decides on the continuation of the case, and, if no additional decisions are necessary, fixes a date for the hearing (Article 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Time-limits in civil procedures: - The usual time-limit established by the judge for the parties to carry out certain actions in a lawsuit is fifteen days.

There are a number of provisions in the enforcement system in Hungary that ensure expeditious remedies. Criminal procedures and customs administration procedures, by their very nature, have the purpose of taking effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights. However, it is mainly in respect of remedies available in civil procedures where Hungarian legislation has quite recently made significant progress. In particular, the special provisions on provisional measures and the preliminary production and preservation of evidence are worth mentioning. These provisions, which were introduced this year, by the new Trademark Act (see the reply to question 1), are of an interpretative nature in relation to the Code of Civil Procedure. They have introduced a statutory presumption in favour of intellectual property rights holders that there is a need to protect a right "deserving special appreciation" (as is required by the general rules of the Code of Civil Procedure), if the applicant certifies that the work, invention, trademark or other subject matter is legally protected, and that he is entitled to that protection, i.e. he is the owner, or the duly authorized licensee, of the intellectual property right in question. Furthermore, courts have been put under the obligation to decide on requests for provisional measures within fifteen days, at the latest, counted from the day of submission of such a request. For further details of expeditious remedies available under Hungarian law, see our replies to the questions related to specific procedures and remedies. As to deliberate delays, the short time-limits established by the Border Measures Decree have the effect that parties are forced to avoid delays. In addition, under Article 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure the court has to prevent all actions which are aimed at, or may lead to, the unjustified prolongation of a lawsuit. Articles 5(2) and 5(4) provide that the court should impose a fine on a party or a representative who, by making false allegations or a declaration or unduly delaying in making statements, hinders the conclusion of the lawsuit. According to Article 120, the fine may amount to Ft 50 000. In addition, several other provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (e.g. Article 105(1) providing that parties are generally not allowed to validly perform an act once omitted, or Article 107 establishing a time-limit of fifteen days following the deadline omitted for justifying an omission etc.) also raise obstacles to deliberate delays.

With regard to each court or administrative body mentioned in the response to question 1, decisions have to be in writing (under Article 219(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 43(3) of the Code of Administrative Procedure and Article 165(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). It is also a general requirement that decisions on the merits of a case be reasoned.

In civil procedures, the court has to take or require evidence to establish facts necessary for rendering a decision. Means of evidence are, in particular, testimonies, expert opinions, inspections, documents and other material proofs. No oath is taken in such proceedings. No evidence is necessary with regard to facts of common knowledge or of official knowledge of the court. Balancing of evidence should be based on the comparison of statements of the parties and proofs coming up in the course of evidence. Results of evidence are to be considered on the whole and judged according to the conviction of the court (Articles 163(1), 163(3), 166 and 206(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure). In connection with the summary procedure applicable to claims of collective administration organizations, as mentioned in the response to question 1, it is to be emphasized that the summary judgement is the outcome of an ex parte procedure, but in the event of an objection by the defendant against the summary judgement, the case will have to be heard by the court. In administrative procedures, the administrative body is required to establish and clarify the facts necessary for rendering a decision. Means of evidence are, in particular, statements of the client, documents, testimonies, inspections and expert opinions. No evidence is necessary with regard to facts of common knowledge or of official knowledge of the administrative body. Balancing of evidence is based on the consideration of the whole evidence. Facts have to be established according to the conviction of the administrative body (Article 26 of the Code of Administrative Procedure). In criminal procedures, means of evidence are, in particular, testimonies, expert opinions, material proofs, documents, inspections, local inquiries, experiments, presentations for recognition and statements of the defendant (Article 61(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). There are several provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure deriving from the different characteristics of criminal procedures as compared to civil proceedings, e.g. Article 61(4) providing that facts which are not proved beyond any doubt must not be judged in a way unfavourable to the defendant; or Article 199 providing that evidence should begin with the interrogation of the defendant. Apart from those differences, provisions on criminal procedures are similar to those on civil procedures.

Review of decisions in civil procedures: - appeal (Articles 233 259 of the Code of Civil Procedure) a remedy available against decisions of the court of first instance, to be submitted within fifteen days following the communication of the decision; - re opening of the case (Articles 260 269 of the Code of Civil Procedure) a remedy available against a final judgement of the court of first instance in cases specified by Article 260(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The request for the re opening of a case is to be submitted within six months (but under no circumstances more than five years) following the date when the contested judgement became effective; - review by the Supreme Court (Articles 270 275/B of the Code of Civil Procedure) a remedy available against final judgements in the case of an unlawful judgement. The request for such review can only be submitted once by the same person with regard to a particular case and within sixty days following the date of communication of the contested judgement. Review of decisions in customs administration procedures: - modification or revocation of the decision (Article 61 of Act No. IV. of 1957 on Administrative Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Procedure) a remedy applied by an administrative body when its decision, having not been examined by a superior body or by court, is unlawful. An administrative body has the authority to apply this kind of remedy only once in a case and within one year following the communication of the decision; - appeal (Articles 62 67 of the Code of Administrative Procedure) a remedy against a first instance decision on the merits of a case, to be submitted within fifteen days following the communication of the decision. The superior administrative body decides on the appeal, affirming, modifying or revoking the initial decision; - supervisory measure (Article 71 of the Code of Administrative Procedure) a remedy applicable ex officio by the superior body within one year following the date when the decision became effective. It can be applied if a decision of an administrative body is unlawful; - judicial review of an administrative decision (Articles 72 73 of the Code of Administrative Procedure) a remedy available against an unlawful decision of an administrative body on the merits of the case. The review can be requested by instituting a civil action within thirty days following the communication of the decision, provided that the right to appeal to a superior administrative body has been exercised, or such appeal is excluded. Remedies in criminal procedures: - appeal (Articles 235 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) a remedy available against the whole or a certain part of a decision of the court of first instance, to be submitted promptly or within three days in the case of an announced decision and within eight days in the case of a served decision; - re opening of the case (Articles 276 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) a remedy applicable to the defendant's disadvantage only by the prosecutor and to the defendant's advantage by the prosecutor, the convicted person, the counsel for the defense, and, in certain cases, the relatives of the convicted person, against a final judgement under circumstances similar to those in the civil procedure; - review by the Supreme Court (Articles 284 291/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure) a remedy applicable to the defendant's disadvantage only by the prosecutor and to the defendant's advantage by the prosecutor, the convicted person, the counsel for the defense, and, in certain cases, the relatives of the convicted person, against the whole or a certain part of a final judgement of the court of second instance in certain cases of violation of substantive law. In copyright litigation, judgements of county (in this case: first instance) courts are reviewed by the Supreme Court. In litigation to be commenced after 1 January 1999, the review will fall within the jurisdiction of the newly established circuit courts under Article 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (circuit courts will be regional courts, serving as second instance courts in respect of cases heard by the county courts in first instance). In cases of copyright judgements, the "review" of the summary judgement, i.e. the actual hearing, falls within the jurisdiction of the same court that has passed the summary judgement.

Under Article 125(1) and 126(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure the judge has to cite the parties for the hearing enclosing the copy of the claim at least eight days before the day of the hearing. The parties must be warned that they may have themselves represented at the trial if they do not appear personally by an attorney at law. The parties have to be told to bring documents concerning the case to the trial, and the defendant has to be warned also of its obligation to make a declaration on the relief sought at the trial, at the latest, and to present facts providing the basis for its response to the action and the proofs of these and to produce its documents concerning the case. The summons of the defendant has to include that its declaration can be filed or recorded on the day before the appointed day for the hearing. A duplicate of the written declaration or the record made on it must immediately be served on the plaintiff by the court and if there is not enough time left for this, it must be handed over at the trial. In cases of summary judgements in copyright cases, the procedure is an ex parte one. The defendant is notified by one original copy of the judgement, which serves as the basis of its objection. If the defendant fails to file the objection within 15 days the summary judgement must be regarded as final and it will be subject to execution.

Under Hungarian legislation in intellectual property enforcement proceedings there are no such limitations.