Among the changes presented in our previous article, the changes concerning the authority structure entered into force on 1 January 2026, and on 1 March 2026 the rule extending consumer status to SMEs (provided that they act outside their economic activity), as well as the rules concerning replacement claims and the value threshold for issuing warranty certificates, also entered into force.

From 19 June 2026, it will become mandatory for webshops and online service providers to provide the online withdrawal function, so they have less than two weeks left to create it. The online withdrawal function must be displayed in a clearly visible and easily accessible manner, under the designation “withdrawal from the contract”. Through this, the consumer must find a clearly worded, easily readable withdrawal statement, which, by filling it in with data and then using the “confirm withdrawal” function, enables the consumer to communicate their withdrawal to the undertaking online.

Although in the case of online purchases consumers have already been entitled to withdraw from the purchase within 14 days without giving reasons, until now this has often meant a complicated, slow process. The change may make the withdrawal process easier for consumers; its purpose is to raise greater awareness of the right of withdrawal, and it will also make the withdrawal practices of individual undertakings more controllable and better documented.

The regulation expressly provides that the “withdrawal button” must be made available in a clearly visible and easily accessible manner, thereby ensuring that undertakings cannot push it into the background and reduce it to a hidden, rarely used function.

After becoming aware of a withdrawal made through online withdrawal, the undertaking must send an acknowledgement of receipt, which certifies that the statement concerning the withdrawal has arrived, that it has been received, and contains the content of the withdrawal as well as the time of sending.

The function has become mandatory regardless of whether the webshop is operated by a Hungarian or foreign undertaking; it extends to all transactions where a consumer purchases from an undertaking outside business premises, through a distance contract.

It is important to note that the withdrawal function does not create a right of withdrawal, but is intended to regulate and facilitate the exercise of the right of withdrawal – therefore, where the consumer is not entitled to such a right in the first place (Section 29 of Government Decree 45/2014 (II. 26.), e.g. customised products, perishable goods), they will not be entitled to it even after the entry into force of the present regulation.

Many Hungarian websites have already created this function, so consumers may already have encountered it in several places. Given that the regulation is based on an EU directive (Directive (EU) 2023/2673), the use of the function will become mandatory on the same date in all European Union countries, so consumers may also notice and use it when using foreign webshops.

In today’s modern legal environment, the documented and professional examination of digital evidence, as well as the protection of devices and user accounts, has become increasingly important in legal disputes and proceedings.

Our firm’s cooperating partner in this field is Biztonság Akadémia Kft.

The professional expertise of our partner is provided by Tamás Durmics, an independent IT security expert and ethical hacker with more than 25 years of experience in information technology and security. His work focuses on documented and independent examination methodologies, as well as on presenting technical findings in a clear and comprehensible manner suitable for use in legal proceedings.

One of the most common situations giving rise to the greatest number of conflicts during probate proceedings is when the deceased dies without making a testamentary disposition. In such cases, the fate of the assets and debts is determined by the statutory order of succession under the Hungarian Civil Code. Although the rules are clear, a significant proportion of clients are not aware of the more important changes introduced by the Civil Code currently in force, particularly with regard to the rights of the surviving spouse or the extent of the compulsory share.

Under the rules currently in force, the general rate of personal income tax (PIT) is 15 per cent of the tax base. In everyday language, many people lump the different concepts together and simply call every case in which no tax is deducted from their gross salary a “tax exemption.” From a legal-dogmatic perspective, however, classical tax exemption must be sharply distinguished from tax allowances. While tax-exempt revenues do not form part of the tax base in the first place, the tax system also recognises different rules that result in a reduction of the private individual’s tax: these are tax allowances reducing the consolidated tax base.

A particular characteristic of personal income tax is that these tax allowances and tax exemptions may be claimed only against income falling within the consolidated tax base and the tax thereon, and exclusively up to that amount.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence represents a landmark step in reconciling innovation with the protection of fundamental rights in the digital sphere. The Regulation’s primary objective is to improve the functioning of the internal market and to promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) within the European Union. At the same time, the Regulation attaches particular importance to ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights—including democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection—against the potentially harmful effects of AI systems.

When enforcing overdue monetary claims, the time and cost involved in court litigation often act as a deterrent for the claimant. However, the Hungarian legal system provides a faster alternative that dispenses with the taking of evidence, known as the order for payment procedure (FMH).

This substitute for litigation, a simplified civil non-contentious procedure, is one of the most effective legal tools for enforcing claims, provided that the obligor does not contest the debt on the merits.