Global Competition Law is primarly a practitioner's guide presenting the most salient aspects of the major competition laws country by country, giving an overview of their structure and most charasteristic elements.
Global Competition Law also provides insight into possible future developments in the field.

Global Competition Law

Investigations and proceedings are governed by the specific provisions of the Competition Act and more generally by the provisions of Act IV of 1957 on the General Rules of Public Administrative Proceedings.
Competition supervision proceedings are commenced on application or may be initiated ex officio, or where a case is referred to the HCA by a court due to its lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, an …

Complaints and investigations

Investigations and proceedings are governed by the specific provisions of the Competition Act and more generally by the provisions of Act IV of 1957 on the General Rules of Public Administrative Proceedings.

Competition supervision proceedings are commenced on application or may be initiated ex officio, or where a case is referred to the HCA by a court due to its lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, any person may make a complaint or an informal complaint to the HCA in respect of an alleged conduct in relation to which the HCA has power to proceed (Chapter IX). Within 2 months of receipt of the notification, the HCA must either take steps to open an investigation, or issue a decision forwarded to the complainant indicating why no investigation is justified (Section 43/H(7)). Complaints must be lodged in writing on a properly completed form issued by the HCA. It is possible for complainants to request that their identity not be revealed. Parties under investigation are to be notified of suspected violations of the law and of relevant facts so as to allow them to make an informed statement concerning the matter under inquiry.

In carrying out their role, investigators of the HCA are entitled, subject to authorization by the courts, to enter any premises, vehicles or land used for business activities in order to carry out on-the-spot investigations and request oral or written explanations. Investigators are further entitled, pursuant to Section 65, to make copies of documents or take possession of original documents. Investigators may request the assistance of the police where necessary. Although investigators do have the right to have access to documents containing business secrets, access to State and trade secrets, given their particularly sensitive nature, are governed by separate regulations. Since the 2013 amendment, communications of the investigated undertakings with in-house lawyers are no longer covered by legal privilege. 

In order to strengthen enforcement of competition rules, as provided for by the ECN+ Directive, Act XIX of 2020 introduced a new provision according to which in competition control proceedings all evidence is  admissible where it enables the relevant facts of the case to be ascertained. Therefore, covert recordings made by natural or legal persons are admissible provided they are not the sole source of evidence of the infringement. However, evidence illegally obtained by the HCA or any other authority shall be declared inadmissible (Section 64/A(1)). Regarding electronic data, Section 64/B now provides that the undertaking may have to disclose information to which it has access regardless of where or how it is stored. This extends to personal data and privileged information, which goes well beyond the requirements of the ECN+ Directive. Under the new wording of Section 65/A(1) searches may be conducted in any premises whether business or private premises, vehicles or data media, even where they have not been used  by the management of the undertaking. However, a court order remains mandatory (Section 65/1(3)). 

Pursuant to Section 67(4), no investigation may be started where five years have elapsed since the infringement of provisions regarding agreements, abuse of a dominant position and mergers.

After completing an investigation, investigators prepare a report for submission to the HCA together with supporting documents. Parties may file objections regarding any irregularities in the investigation procedure within 8 days of their occurring (Section 81).

Upon receipt of the report by the investigator, the HCA may either terminate proceedings where no liability is established or return the files to the investigator for further clarification (Section 72). Thereafter, where appropriate, the HCA may schedule a hearing, allowing the parties sufficient time to prepare their defense and access to the file.

Act No CCI of 2013 established detailed rules providing for an extended access to the case file for third parties. The latter may now have access to a non-confidential version of the file after completion of proceedings where they show legitimate interest, notably in the context of damages claims. However, they cannot be allowed to consult leniency applications or settlement agreements. Only investigated undertakings may have access to leniency applications, if they prove that those documents are necessary for the exercice of their defense rights.

Where in the course of proceedings started ex officio, parties offer commitments to ensure compliance of their practices with the Competition Act and if the public interest can be safeguarded, the HCA can render the commitments binding on the parties and terminate the proceedings. Under Act XIX of 2020, the HCA may impose the obligations laid down in its decision for a fixed duration, and the HCA may not take any investigative measure - neither before the expiry of the deadline nor after, if the commitments remedied the situation - regarding the infringement or the lack thereof. The 2013 Amendment allowed the HCA to make alterations to a commitment previously made binding where it is shown that its implementation is not possible or no longer useful. Pursuant to the 2020 amendment, the commitment decision may now be withdrawn where it was adopted based on incomplete, incorrect or misleading information. Also, before making the commitments compulsory, the HCA will now be allowed to submit them to interested parties, which will benefit from a 20 days deadline to make their views known in writing. This consultation will however be compulsory where Articles 101 or 102 TFEU are at stake.

Further, the 2013 Act introduced a settlement procedure into Hungarian law whereby in exchange for the admission of its participation in the infringement and the commitment not to challenge the HCA's decision, an undertaking may obtain a fine reduction of up to 10% (Section 73/A). The settlement reward may be combined with a fine reduction under the leniency program. The HCA adopted a notice explaining its settlement policy in November 2015 (Notice 3/2015) which extends the scope of the procedure to abuses of a dominant position. The notice also deviates from EU law by providing that settlers must waive their right to appeal the HCA's final ruling. The 9 December 2016 amendment further enhanced the interest of the settlement procedure by raising the reward for settlers.

Proceedings before the HCA

The HCA may, upon recommendation by an investigator of the HCA, order that interim measures be taken pending a decision on the merits in order to halt the contination of the infringing behavior (Section 72/A). Since the 2020 amendment, where the proceedings at issue concern the violation of Articles 101 or 102 TFEU, the HCA commits to inform the European Competition Network of the imposition of interim measures.

Interim relief

The local county court or the Budapest Metropolitan Court have jurisdiction over suits initiated by parties that have suffered harm as a result of a violation of the Act. The 9 December 2016 amendments implemented EU Directive 2014/104 on damages actions into Hungarian Law. The new rules provide for full compensation of damage suffered in relation to infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and Sections 11 and 21 of the Competition Act. However compensation may not be awarded where the overcharge resulting from the cartel has been passed on by the claimant to the final customer. Pursuant to the Act, the courts are bound by final decisions of the Competition Authority and the European Commission as to the finding of the infringements. Decisions of national competition authorities of other Member States may be invoked, but their findings may be challenged. In the case of a stand-alone action, the court may request the Competition Authority's opinion but is not bound by it. The Act also grants the claimant a proportionate access to evidence in the possession of the other parties to the case which may not, however, extend to leniency applications, settlement agreements or documents covered by legal privilege. Where the action concerns multiple infringers, as is often the case in cartels, the Act provides for their joint and several liability vis-a-vis the claimant. Nevertheless such liability is limited for leniency beneficiaries and SMEs.

Global Competition Law

371. Complaints and investigations

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

371. Complaints and investigations

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise