Search

Search Results

• The role of interest in civil processes

  42-46

  Tibor Kiss

  Views:

  256

  The study reviews the enforcement of various interest-related claims in civil litigation and their special litigation rules, emphasizing that there are few specific norms in the Code of Civil Procedure from a procedural point of view compared to the enforcement of pecuniary claims. The study compares the interest provisions of the Act III. of 1952 and the Act CXXX of 2016, and seeks to provide adequate answers to enforcement issues arising from regulatory gaps. The article states that the law generally sets out some specific procedural provisions for contributions to be enforced together with the principal claim, which are also subject to interest as a contribution to the principal claim. The number of purely interest-specific provisions in our current law is negligible. The analysis covers the following specific legal provisions concerning interest: the amount in dispute, appeal against the interest provisions of the judgment at first instance, the admissibility at second instance of an increase of the claim for payment of interest, the admissibility of an application for review only of the provisions of a final judgment concerning interest. The study evaluates trends in court practice through analysis of ad hoc court decisions. The author states that uniform and coherent case law is in the best interests of the claimants based on clear legal provisions.

• The proprietary rights as the objects of contribution in kind and the occurring problems caused by the lack of unified rules

  114-120

  Zóra Zsófia Lehoczki

  Views:

  339

  According to the new Hungarian Civil Code, the funders of the legal entities have to make contributions to the authorised capital and the two forms of these contributions are the contribution is cash and the contribution in kind. The regulation states that proprietary rights can also be transferred to the capital of businness accociations, by those funders, who are entitled to demise them.

  The judicial practice unanimously defined the rules in those cases, when the object of contribution in kind is a certain proprietary right, especially when the right is connected to the real estate. On the other hand, the Civil Code does not contain a list of those proprietary rights, which can be transferred to the authorised capital and unfortunately, different acts contain different lists of these rights.

  The three mentioned acts are the following: the personal income tax act, the act about the fees and the accounting act. All of them contain a list of proprietary rights and some of the items are regulated by all the three of them but most of the items are different, which means it is impossible to create an accurate list of these rights. For example, the list in the personal income tax act contains only five items, on the other hand, the accounting act contains two lists and both of them are unfinised.

  Because of the lack of unified rules, it is impossible to define which proprietary rights can become the objects of contribution in kind and this misfortunate situation causes a lot of unwanted indefinability and states a lot of questions.

  In my essay I introduce this problem and I use a chart to illustrate the differences between the mentioned lists. In my opinion, this problem could be solved with an unified list, which is normative for every regulation in connection with the proprietary rights or the Civil Code should contain a list of those proprietary rights, which can be the objects of contribution in kind.