Prohibition of Practices Presenting an Unacceptable Risk

The strictest and earliest-applicable elements of the regulatory framework concern the prohibition of artificial intelligence practices presenting an unacceptable risk. As certain uses are incompatible with the fundamental values of the European Union, the provisions governing these prohibited practices have applied since 2 February 2025.

Strictly prohibited practices include, for example, the use of manipulative or deceptive techniques that target the human subconscious. Such techniques may materially distort human behaviour and thereby cause significant harm. The social scoring of natural persons based on their social behaviour or personal characteristics is likewise prohibited. By introducing these prohibitions after a transition period of only six months, the EU legislature sought to ensure that the most serious risks would be addressed as soon as possible.

Penalties, Legal Liability and General-Purpose AI Models

Although the Regulation will not become fully applicable for several years, the EU legislature established another critical milestone for 2 August 2025, which has a significant impact on the legal liability of market operators.

The Regulation provides that Member States must establish penalties for infringements that are proportionate and dissuasive. Most importantly, the provisions concerning penalties and administrative fines have applied since 2 August 2025. This earlier date of application means that market surveillance authorities may take enforcement action and impose fines on persons who breach provisions that have already become applicable, well before the Regulation applies in its entirety.

The obligations applicable to general-purpose artificial intelligence models are also linked to the 2 August 2025 deadline. These models, which are trained on vast amounts of data and display significant generality, can readily be integrated into other systems. In their case, the exceptionally rapid development and adoption of the technology justified an earlier date of application. In addition, the institutional infrastructure required for effective enforcement must also be established. Accordingly, the provisions relating to notified bodies and governance structures also became applicable on that date.

General Application and Requirements for High-Risk Systems

The principal date of general application of the Regulation is 2 August 2026, from which date most of its provisions will become mandatory. These include the particularly stringent requirements and obligations applicable to high-risk AI systems.

From that date, providers of high-risk systems will be required to operate a quality management system and maintain detailed technical documentation. They must ensure appropriate human oversight, as well as the accuracy and cybersecurity of their systems. From August 2026, the placing on the market or putting into service of such systems will also be subject to strict conformity assessment procedures and the affixing of the CE marking.

By providing a two-year preparation period, the EU legislature sought to ensure legal certainty, avoid excessive disruption to the market and allow economic operators sufficient time to comply with the relatively complex administrative and technical requirements.

Divorce can raise significant questions not only in personal life but also regarding the future of a business. This is particularly true when one spouse owns a company or when the spouses have built a business together during their marriage. In such cases, an important question arises: if the company is registered in only one spouse’s name, can the other spouse claim a share of its value?

The answer depends on several factors, including when and how the business interest was acquired, the period during which the spouses’ marital community of property existed, and whether joint marital assets were used to finance the business.

When transferring a high-value property, the key question is not only under which legal title the property can be acquired, but also what tax or duty consequences arise from the chosen legal arrangement. This is particularly relevant where the acquirer does not fall within the scope of persons exempt from inheritance or gift duty. This raises an important question: which legal arrangement – inheritance, gift, maintenance agreement, inheritance contract or trust – may result in the lowest duty burden?

Notice: This article does not constitute legal advisory services, and does not necessarily match the interpretation of the applicable laws by the authorities. This article is for general information only.

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.