Vol. 16 No. 2 (2025)
Studies

An Analysis of the Cost Structure of Judicial Enforcement Procedures in Hungary: Legal, Economic, and Comparative Perspectives

PDF
Zoltán Sőre
PhD student, Doctoral School of Law and Political Sciences, Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church
DOI: https://doi.org/10.61177/HISZ.2025.16.2.11

Published 15-12-2025

Keywords

  • remuneration of judicial officers,
  • cost structure,
  • fee regulations,
  • efficiency,
  • legal certainty

Copyright (c) 2025 Zoltán Sőre

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This study offers a comprehensive legal and economic analysis of the cost structure of judicial enforcement procedures in Hungary, with particular emphasis on the delicate balance between the remuneration and liability of enforcement officers. My commitment to the topic was inspired by my personal experience of being convicted by the court responsible for conducting the enforcement in a manner that could only be remedied through a separate lawsuit after a protracted period. This incident illustrates the absurd situation that can emerge in the performance of a public duty: the remuneration of an enforcement officer neither keeps pace with changes in the prices of goods and services nor reflects prevailing inflation and wage trends, while at the same time their liability remains for the entire claim, in all cases.

The study places particular emphasis on the irregularities identified in the reports of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (AJB-1876/2011,[1] AJB-4756/2012[2]), such as disproportionately high costs and a lack of legal certainty. The study examines the changes and effects of the decrees governing the fees of judicial enforcement officers (14/1994. (IX. 8.) IM; 35/2015. (XI. 10.) IM; 8/2021. (X. 29.) SZTFH) and reviews relevant judicial decisions that illuminate the challenges of legal practice. It employs legal, economic, and comparative methodologies, drawing on both national and international literature and analyzing the enforcement fee systems of neighbouring countries—Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Romania. Particular attention is devoted to the relationship between enforcement officers’ remuneration and that of other legal professions, as well as its impact on debtors, compliance behavior, and the overall efficiency of enforcement. The research seeks to identify weaknesses in the current system and to formulate recommendations aimed at enhancing legal certainty and efficiency, while also taking into account economic rationality and lessons derived from international experience.

 

[1] AJB‑1876/2011, “On the remuneration of enforcement officers and legal representatives of the enforcing party”, retrieved 4 March 2024 Retrieved: 4 March 2024.

[2] AJB‑4756/2012, “On the Costs of Enforcement Proceedings”, Retrieved 4 March 2024

PDF

References

  1. References
  2. Balogh, Z., Balogh-Békesi, N., Bencsik, A., Bokor, B., Boros, P., Csink, L., Fábián, A., Gyergyák, F., György, E., Horváth, L., Huszárné Oláh, I., Józsa Fábián, K., József, A., Jugovits, R., Kiss, D., Koi, G., Menyhárt, A., Németh, J., Patyi, A., Szólik, M., Tamás, A., Turkovics, E., Váczi, T., Varga, Zs., Vecsera, G., & Vincze-Csapó, J. (2019): The characteristics of domestic administrative procedural law (Original title: A hazai közigazgatási hatósági eljárási jog karakterisztikája). Budapest, Dialóg Campus.
  3. Birher, Nándor (2021): Stability of theoretical foundations in a world of shifting success criteria (Original title: Az elméleti alapok tartóssága a sikerkritériumok változékonyságának világában). In: Peres, Zsuzsanna; Pál, Gábor (eds.) Ünnepi tanulmányok a 80 éves Tamás András tiszteletére: semper ad perfectum. Budapest, Ludovika Egyetemi Kiadó. pp. 94-103.
  4. Benke, J., Bodnár, B., Czine, Á., Dánielné Farkas, Á., Fiedler, J., Hideg, J., Hohmann, B., Juhász, Z., Király, M., Köblös, T., Maczonkai, M., Pókecz Kovács, A., Simon, Z., Ujkéry, L., & Villám, B. (2022): Commemorative volume in honour of Miklós Kengyel (Original title: Emlékkötet Kengyel Miklós tiszteletére). Budapest, Ludovika University Press.
  5. Gárdosi, J. (2017): Costs of debt recovery: Practical issues in interpreting Decree 35/2015. (XI.30.) IM. (Original title: A kintlevőségek behajtásának költségei: a bírósági végrehajtói díjszabásról szóló 35/2015. (XI.30.) IM rendelet értelmezésének gyakorlati kérdései) Gazdaság és Jog, 25(10), pp. 12–19.
  6. Gyovai, M. (2014): Thoughts on the relationship between the National Asset Management Company and judicial enforcement. (Original title: Gondolatok a Nemzetközi Eszközkezelő Zrt. és a bírósági végrehajtás kapcsolatáról). Közjegyzők közlönye, 61(2), pp. 47-53.
  7. Hanzó, G. (n.d.): Legal interpretation of advance payment of enforcement costs (Original title: A végrehajtási költségek előlegezésének jogértelmezése) https://www.jogiforum.hu/files/publikaciok/hanzo_gabriella__a_vegrehajtasi_koltsegek_elolegezesenek_jogertelmezese[jogi_forum].pdf. accessed: 21 July 2025.
  8. Kormos, E: (2002): Principles in judicial enforcement [Original title: Alapelvek a bírósági végrehajtásban] Doctoral dissertation, University of Miskolc.
  9. Juhász, Z. (2007): Constitutionality of judicial enforcement – Ombudsman practice in enforcement cases. (Original title: A bírósági végrehajtás alkotmányossága: Az ombudsman gyakorlata a bírósági végrehajtókkal kapcsolatos ügyekben). Themis: Az Elte Állam- És Jogtudományi Doktori Iskola Elektronikus Folyóirata, 2007(2), pp. 30–42. https://edit.elte.hu/xmlui/handle/10831/34419. accessed: 2 July 2025.
  10. Pap, P. (2024): Enforcement costs in judicial practice in Tolna County in the 1920s and 1930s. (Original title: Végrehajtási költségek az ¬1920-as és ¬1930-as évek Tolna vármegyei bírósági gyakorlatában). In: Heil, Kristóf Mihály (ed.) Az országbírói bíráskodástól a koncepciós perekig: Szemelvények egy új jogtörténész generáció kutatásaiból. Budapest, Ludovika Egyetemi Kiadó, pp. 183-199.
  11. Petrovicz, A. (2014): Costs arising in the course of judicial enforcement. (Original title: A bírósági végrehajtás foganatosítása során felmerülő költségek). Jog Állam Politika: Jog- és Politikatudományi Folyóirat. 6(3), pp. 129-147.
  12. Rijavec, V. (2006): International enforcement law illustrated by the example of Slovenia. (Original title: A nemzetközi végrehajtási jog Szlovénia példáján) Közjegyzők közlönye, 53(7-8), pp. 3-14.
  13. Sőréné Batka, E. (2023): Judicial enforcement and proportional solidarity: Legal and socio-ethical issues. (Original title: Bírósági végrehajtás és arányos szolidaritás: jogi és társadalometikai kérdések.) Doctoral dissertation, University of Pécs. https://jak.ppke.hu/uploads/articles/12332/file/S.Batka_Eszter_tezismk.pdf. accessed: 20 June 2025.
  14. Trunkos, A. K. (2012): Issues related to the allocation of enforcement costs in case of non-recovery. (Original title: A végrehajtási eljárási költségek viselésének kérdései behajthatatlanság esetén). Publicationes Universitatis Miskolcinensis. Sectio Juridica et Politica, 30(2), pp. 601–609.
  15. Udvary, S. (2021): Economic analysis of the electronization of judicial enforcement in Hungary. Zbornik Radova Pravni Fakultet (Novi Sad), 55(3) pp. 993-1014. https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns55-34381
  16. Web Sources (APA Style)
  17. Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers of Serbia. (n.d.): Fee schedule for enforcement officers. https://komoraizvrsitelja.rs/propisi-ministarstva-pravde/ accessed: 28 July 2025.
  18. Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers of Serbia (n.d.): Public executors. https://komoraizvrsitelja.rs/javni-izvrsitelji/ accessed: 28 July 2025.
  19. EU Enforcement Atlas. (2021): Civil Enforcement in the EU: A Comparative Overview. https://www.enforcementatlas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/EU-Enforcement-Atlas-Comparative-Report.pdf. accessed: 9 April 2025.
  20. European Judicial Enforcement Network. (n.d.): Croatia enforcement system e-manual. https://www.enforcementatlas.eu/enforcement-systems/croatia/ accessed: 10 June 2025.
  21. European e-Justice Portal. (n.d.): How to enforce a court decision – Austria. https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/taking-legal-action/where-and-how/costs/at_hu#b%C3%ADr%C3%B3s%C3%A1gi-v%C3%A9grehajt%C3%B3k. accessed: 10 June 2025.
  22. European e-Justice Portal. (n.d.): How to Enforce a Court Decision – Croatia. https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/taking-legal-action/where-and-how/costs/hr_hu, accessed: 11 June 2025.
  23. European e-Justice Portal. (n.d.): How to enforce a court decision – Romania. https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/taking-legal-action/where-and-how/costs/ro_hu accessed: 11 June 2025.
  24. European Judicial Enforcement Network. (n.d.): Austria enforcement system e-manual. https://www.enforcementatlas.eu/enforcement-systems/austria/ accessed: 10 June 2025.
  25. European Judicial Enforcement Network. (n.d.): Slovakia enforcement system e-manual. https://www.enforcementatlas.eu/enforcement-systems/slovakia/ accessed: 10 June 2025.
  26. European Judicial Enforcement Network. (n.d.): Slovenia enforcement system e-manual. https://www.enforcementatlas.eu/enforcement-systems/slovenia/ accessed: 10 June 2025.
  27. Magyar Bírói Egyesület (MABIE) (2024): Communication of the Hungarian Judges' Association on ensuring the proportionality of judicial salaries (Original title: A MABIE közleménye a bírói fizetések arányosságának biztosításáról. https://mabie.hu/berjavaslat/a-mabie-koezlemenye-a-biroi-fizetesek-aranyossaganak-biztositasarol, accessed 1 August 2025.
  28. State Audit Office of Hungary. (2021): Analysis of notarial and enforcement activities. https://www.asz.hu/dokumentumok/E2134_kozjegyzoi_es_vegrehajtoi_tevekenyseg_ET_1116_m__d___sszef__z__tt_SKO.pdf. accessed: 13 July 2025.
  29. List of Legal Instruments
  30. Fundamental Law of Hungary. (2011): (Magyarország Alaptörvénye)
  31. Act CXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts. (2011. évi CXI. törvény)
  32. Decree No. 14/1994. (IX. 8.) of the Minister of Justice on Judicial Enforcement Fees. (14/1994. (IX. 8.) IM rendelet)
  33. Decree No. 35/2015. (XI. 10.) of the Minister of Justice on Judicial Enforcement Fees.
  34. (35/2015. (XI. 10.) IM rendelet)
  35. Decree No. 8/2021. (X. 29.) of the Supervisory Authority for Regulated Activities (SZTFH). (8/2021. (X. 29.) SZTFH rendelet)
  36. Decree No. 68/2017 of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic on the implementation of certain provisions of the amended Act No. 233/1995 of the National Council of the Slovak Republic on Judicial Executors and Enforcement Proceedings (Enforcement Code), and on amendments to certain other laws. (68/2017. rendelet – Szlovák Köztársaság Igazságügyi Minisztériuma)
  37. List of Judicial Decisions and Official Reports
  38. Győr Regional Court of Appeal. (2024): Decision No. Pf.III.20.050/2024/5/I.
  39. Gyula Regional Court. (2025): Decision No. 15.Pkf.25.208/2025/2.
  40. Budapest Metropolitan Court. (2019): Decision No. 48.Pkf.636.090/2019/2.
  41. Szombathely Regional Court. (2020): Decision No. Pkf.20.551/2020/3/1.
  42. Szombathely Regional Court. (2020): Decision No. Pkf.20.539/2020/3/I.
  43. Veszprém Regional Court. (2023): Decision No. 5.P.20.422/2023/12/I.
  44. Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. (2011): Report No. AJB-1876/2011.
  45. Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. (2012): Report No. AHB-4756/2012.