Dr. Bertalan Bajusz, attorney-at-law > Blog > Defective products: when are the manufacturer, the developer and the seller liable?

Defective products: when are the manufacturer, the developer and the seller liable?

New product liability rules from 9 December 2026

Dr. Bertalan Bajusz, attorney-at-law · Published: 5 November 2026

On 9 December 2026, the product liability provisions of the Hungarian Civil Code (Act V of 2013) will change. Software will expressly be classified as a product, so the developer of defective software may be liable for the damage it causes alongside the manufacturer. The EUR 500 minimum threshold for damage to other property will be abolished, and in specified cases the defectiveness of the product or the causal link between the defect and the damage will be presumed.1

Who can claim compensation, and from whom?

If a defective product causes someone an injury or damages their home, for example, the injured person may claim compensation directly from the manufacturer. Under the product liability provisions, only a natural person can be an injured person. They need not have purchased the product or entered into a contract with the manufacturer. A business other than the manufacturer may also be liable, but only if the statutory conditions applicable to it are met.2

In our example, a business manufactures a smart heater. It commissions a separate software company to develop the control software and incorporates it into the device. The buyer purchases the heater from an online shop and uses it at home. A defect in the software causes the device to overheat and catch fire. The fire damages the buyer’s furniture.

The manufacturer is liable for the damage caused by the defective device. The software company is also liable: the defective software it developed was incorporated into the heater by the manufacturer, causing the device to be defective. They are jointly and severally liable: the buyer may claim full compensation from either of them, but cannot recover twice for the same damage. If one business pays, the other’s obligation is discharged to the extent of that payment.3

What defects and what damage give rise to liability?

For the purposes of product liability, a product is defective if it does not provide the safety that can generally be expected or that is required under EU or Hungarian law. Not every malfunction constitutes such a defect. In our example, the software defect that causes overheating and fire affects the safety of the device.4

Damage covered by product liability includes material loss resulting from death, physical injury or damage to health caused by a defective product. In the case of a burn injury, this may include the cost of necessary treatment or lost earnings. The new provision also expressly refers to loss resulting from medically recognised damage to psychological health. Compensation for material loss resulting from damage to health is distinct from compensation for non-material loss (sérelemdíj) that may be claimed for an infringement of personality rights.5

In our example, the damage to the furniture is also covered by product liability. The EUR 500 minimum threshold for damage to other property will be abolished: under the new provisions, damage not exceeding the forint equivalent of EUR 500 is also recoverable.6

It will no longer be necessary for the damaged property to be intended for private use and for the injured person ordinarily to use it for that purpose. As regards the purpose of use, the new provision excludes only damage to property used exclusively for professional purposes. Damage to a laptop used for both work and private purposes is therefore covered by product liability, even though the laptop is partly used for work.7

Damage to the defective heater itself, however, is not covered by product liability. Nor can compensation be claimed on this basis for damage to a finished product caused by a defective component integrated into, or inter-connected with, that product by its manufacturer or within that manufacturer’s control. In our example, therefore, damage to the heater itself does not become recoverable under the product liability rules by invoking the defective software.8

Because the device is defective, the buyer may pursue statutory remedies for lack of conformity against the seller. These may include, for example, requesting repair or replacement. The remedies available depend on the nature of the defect and the statutory conditions. As a consumer, the buyer also has a statutory right to require repair directly from the manufacturer. If repair is not possible within an appropriate period without prejudice to the buyer’s interests, the buyer may request replacement. Repairing or replacing the device does not, however, compensate for the damage to the furniture: that is the purpose of the product liability claim.9

A new feature is compensation for damage to data that are not used for professional purposes. If, for example, defective software deletes a user’s family photographs, the reasonable cost of the data recovery made necessary by the deletion may also be claimed. If the photographs can be restored from a backup free of charge and no other material loss has occurred, the deletion does not give rise to a claim for compensation for material loss. The injured person must prove that damage occurred and establish its amount.10

The product liability provisions do not govern a company’s claim for damage it has itself suffered. If, for example, a defect in commissioned software corrupts the company’s customer database, the claim against the developer may be pursued under the rules on liability for damage caused by breach of contract. The breach, the damage caused and any grounds on which the developer may be exempt from liability must then be assessed separately.11

From when do the new provisions apply?

The new provisions apply to products placed on the market on or after 9 December 2026. Placing on the market means the first making available of the particular product on the EU market. An example is the manufacturer’s first sale of the product to a Hungarian wholesaler. Supplying a product free of charge for distribution, consumption or use in the course of a commercial activity also constitutes making it available on the market.12

If the particular heater was first placed on the EU market in November 2026, its sale by the online shop in late December does not make the new provisions applicable. If it is first made available on the EU market only on 20 December, the new provisions apply. What must be examined is when the individual product was placed on the market, rather than the date on which that model was introduced or the damage occurred.13

If a product has not previously been placed on the market, putting it into service on or after 9 December 2026 makes the new provisions applicable. This is the case, for example, when a business first uses a machine of its own manufacture at its own plant in Hungary. Putting into service, as defined by law, means the first use in the EU in the course of a commercial activity, where the product has not previously been placed on the market. Switching on at home a device that has already been placed on the market does not constitute putting into service in this sense.14

What must be proved, and what defences are available to the business?

As a general rule, the injured person must prove the defectiveness of the product, that damage occurred and its amount, and that the defect caused the damage. They do not have to establish fault on the part of the manufacturer. Liability is strict: the manufacturer cannot avoid liability by showing that it acted with due care.15

The new provisions of the Civil Code presume the defectiveness of the product in specified circumstances. In such cases, the court treats the product as defective unless the contrary is proved. The presumption arises if the liable economic operator fails to disclose relevant evidence to the injured person when ordered to do so by the court. The same applies if the injured person proves that the product does not comply with product safety requirements. The presumption also arises if the injured person proves that the damage was caused by an obvious malfunction during reasonably foreseeable use or under ordinary circumstances.16

Where the product’s defectiveness has been established and the damage caused is of a kind typically consistent with that defect, the causal link between the defect and the damage must also be presumed. The business may rebut both presumptions. Even in these cases, the injured person must prove that damage occurred and establish its amount.17

A separate presumption applies where the injured person faces excessive difficulties in proving the claim, for example due to the product’s technical or scientific complexity. This requires the business to disclose the relevant evidence as ordered by the court, while the difficulty nevertheless persists. The injured person must also demonstrate that it is likely that the product is defective, that there is a causal link between the defect and the damage, or both. The court examines these conditions in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case. If they are met, it must presume the defectiveness, the causal link or both, depending on which is subject to the difficulties of proof and has been demonstrated to be likely. The fact that the software is complex is not sufficient for the presumption to apply.18

The business may nevertheless be exempt from liability on the grounds specified in the Civil Code. The manufacturer of incorporated software may, for example, prove that the device’s defectiveness is attributable to its design or to instructions received from the device manufacturer. The development agreement and technical instructions therefore do more than specify the tasks: they may also be relevant as evidence when a claim for compensation is determined.19

Software developers and device manufacturers: what should the contract cover?

Under the new provisions, both a standalone application and software incorporated into a device are products. Under the new EU Product Liability Directive, this remains the case where the software is accessed through the cloud. A business developing such software is classified as a manufacturer even if it develops it to order.20

These product liability provisions do not apply to free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity. If a device manufacturer incorporates such software into its product, however, that exception does not exempt it from its own liability for a defect in the device.21

Sharing compensation payments between the manufacturer and the developer

The manufacturer and developer who are jointly and severally liable may agree how compensation payments are to be apportioned between them. This does not, however, restrict the injured person’s rights: they may still claim the full amount from either of them. A term excluding or limiting the liable economic operator’s product liability towards the injured person is void. The term is void even where it is included in an individual contract with the injured person or in standard terms and conditions.22

Continuing with the heater example, suppose that the damage to the furniture amounts to HUF 2 million. The manufacturer and developer have validly agreed to bear such compensation payments in equal shares. If the manufacturer compensates the buyer for the entire HUF 2 million loss, it may claim HUF 1 million from the developer. This is its right of recourse: the manufacturer has paid that much more than its own share.23

A right of recourse may arise even without a specific contractual term: a party that has paid more than its own share may recover the excess from the other parties liable, up to their respective shares. The Civil Code provides for equal shares only where the legal relationship between the parties liable does not dictate otherwise. Where the contract is silent, the statutory default rule therefore does not resolve every question of apportionment either. The development agreement should make specific provision for how amounts paid to the injured person are to be accounted for between the parties, rather than dealing only with a liability cap linked to the development fee.24

Waiving the right of recourse against the developer

The Civil Code makes specific provision for the right of recourse against a software developer that qualifies as a microenterprise or small enterprise. If the manufacturer incorporating the software contractually waives its right of recourse, it cannot recover from the developer compensation payments falling within the scope of that waiver. The developer must qualify as a microenterprise or small enterprise when the particular software component is placed on the market. The manufacturer’s waiver does not prevent the injured person from claiming compensation directly from the developer.25

To qualify as a small enterprise, staff headcount must be below 50, and annual net turnover or the annual balance sheet total must not exceed the forint equivalent of EUR 10 million. A microenterprise must have a staff headcount below 10, and the ceiling for annual net turnover or the annual balance sheet total is the forint equivalent of EUR 2 million.26

The classification cannot be determined solely by looking at the company’s own staff headcount and turnover. Ownership and control relationships, the figures for partner and linked enterprises, and the financial statements and period to be used in the calculation must also be examined. A software company with twelve staff that belongs to a group may therefore exceed the small enterprise thresholds when the group’s figures are included.27

As a developer, check whether the contract contains the waiver and which claims it covers. Retain the records establishing your classification at the time the software component was placed on the market. As a device manufacturer, consider the scope of the waiver: you cannot recover from the developer compensation payments falling within it.

Who develops and provides security updates?

A software update released later may also cause the device to be defective. If the manufacturer provides the update itself or through another business, the update is within its control for the purposes of the law. A business liable for a defect relating to such an update cannot avoid liability by arguing that the defect arose only after the product was placed on the market. The same applies where the defect results from the lack of a software update necessary to maintain safety and that update is within the manufacturer’s control.28

The circumstances of installation must also be examined. According to the Directive’s preamble, the manufacturer is not liable for the lack of a security update where the provision or installation of that update is outside its control. It gives the example of an owner failing to install an update that has been made available. This does not, however, mean that any failure to install an update exempts the manufacturer from liability for every product defect.29

The development or maintenance agreement should therefore specify who develops and tests the update, who supplies it to the user, who is responsible for installation and for how long those tasks are undertaken. The product liability provisions themselves do not impose an obligation to provide updates. Such an obligation may, however, arise under other legislation or the contract.30

When is the importer, distributor or online shop liable?

The same company operating an online shop may be an importer in relation to one product and a distributor or manufacturer in relation to another. Its classification depends on the actual circumstances of procurement, manufacture and sale.31

If a Hungarian online shop is the first to place on the EU market a heater originating in China and made by a manufacturer established in China, it is classified as an importer. In that case, it is jointly and severally liable with the manufacturer for damage covered by product liability: the injured person may claim full compensation directly from it. They need not sue the Chinese manufacturer first. Importer liability is not new: the previous provisions of the Civil Code also treated a person who imported a product into the European Economic Area in the course of an economic activity as a manufacturer.32

If the company is not itself classified as a manufacturer or importer and purchases from an importer a product that has already been placed on the EU market, it is classified as a distributor. If the economic operator liable under the law cannot be identified, the injured person may request the distributor to identify the liable economic operator established in the EU or its own distributor, that is, the business from which it obtained the product. If it fails to do so within one month of receiving the request, it is itself liable for the damage covered by product liability.33

One month is not the same as thirty days. The previous provision required a written request and prescribed a thirty-day time limit. The new provision does not require the request to be made in writing. When handling complaints, it is therefore advisable to record both the content of the request and when it was received.34

An online shop may be classified as a manufacturer even if it does not make the product itself. This includes anyone who has the product designed or manufactured, or who presents themselves as its manufacturer by putting their own name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product. Identifying the supplier does not exempt it from liability as a manufacturer.35

A business is also classified as a manufacturer if, outside the manufacturer’s control, it substantially modifies a product that has already been placed on the market or put into service, and then makes that product available on the market or puts it into service. Whether the modification is substantial must first be assessed under the EU or national product safety rules applicable to that product.36

If the product safety rules do not define the threshold for a substantial modification, the Civil Code requires two cumulative conditions to be met. The modification must change the product’s performance, purpose or type in a way that was not foreseen in the manufacturer’s initial risk assessment. It must also change the nature of the hazard, create a new hazard or increase the level of risk. The business carrying out the modification is exempt from liability if it proves that the defect that caused the damage relates to a part of the product unaffected by the modification.37

On an online marketplace, consumers may also enter into contracts with other traders. The provider of the online platform may be liable under a separate provision if it is not itself one of the economic operators listed in the Civil Code as liable for damage covered by product liability. This requires the interface or the way the transaction is conducted to give the average consumer the impression that the product is provided by the platform provider or by a trader acting under its authority or control. The conditions described for distributor liability must also be met. The liable economic operator must be unidentifiable, and the injured person must request the platform provider to identify that operator. If the platform provider fails to comply with the request within one month of receiving it, it is liable for the damage covered by product liability.38

If the supplier undertakes to replace defective goods, this does not mean that it also undertakes to reimburse compensation paid to the injured person. A replacement device does not replace the furniture damaged in the fire. Check which payments the supplier undertakes to reimburse, on what conditions and up to what amount. The supplier’s standard terms and conditions may limit that undertaking and must therefore be assessed alongside the contract.39

Investigating a claim for compensation may also require technical instructions, test results, update records and procurement documents. If these are held by the developer or supplier, the company may not always have immediate access to them. Its contract with them should therefore also address the retention and provision of documents.40

How can I help?

I advise on whether your company may be liable for damage caused by a product and what it may claim from its contractual partners. I draft and review development, maintenance, licensing, supply and distribution agreements, as well as standard terms and conditions and end-user terms. I prepare the necessary amendments and represent your company in disputes concerning claims for compensation and recourse, both out of court and in litigation.

Phone: +36 70 366 0631 · Email: ugyved@drbajuszbertalan.hu

Contact · Information technology law and intellectual property · Contract law and document drafting

Notes and legal sources

References to the Civil Code in connection with the new product liability provisions mean the text in force from 9 December 2026. The notes identify the previous provisions separately.

  1. Sections 6:550(1)–(2), 6:552, 6:553(b) and 6:556 of the Civil Code; Sections 59–60 and 95(6) of Act XCII of 2025. The conditions in Section 6:550(1)(b) must also be examined when assessing the liability of the developer of incorporated software. New provisions – NJT↑

  2. Sections 6:550, 6:553 and 6:554(2)(f) of the Civil Code; Article 5(1) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. A contract with the liable economic operator is not required for a person to qualify as an injured person. New provisions – NJT · Directive – EUR-Lex↑

  3. Section 6:550(1)(a)–(b) and (2)–(3), and Section 6:29(1)–(2) of the Civil Code. The hypothetical example assumes that the product’s defectiveness and the causal link have been proved. Neither business establishes a ground for exemption from liability. New provisions – NJT · Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny↑

  4. Section 6:555(1)–(4) of the Civil Code. Subsection (2) lists further factors to be considered when assessing defectiveness. The occurrence of damage does not dispense with the need to examine whether the product is defective. New provisions – NJT↑

  5. Sections 6:553(a), 6:522(1)–(2) and 2:52 of the Civil Code; Article 6(1)(a) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. The explanatory memorandum to Sections 59–60 of Act XCII of 2025 also recognises the separate legal basis for compensation for non-material loss (sérelemdíj) arising from an infringement of personality rights. New provisions – NJT · Civil Code – NJT · Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny↑

  6. Section 6:552(b) of the Civil Code, applicable up to and including 8 December 2026, refers to property damage exceeding the forint equivalent of EUR 500. The new Section 6:553(b) contains no monetary threshold. All other conditions for liability continue to apply. Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny · New provisions – NJT↑

  7. Former Section 6:552(b) and new Section 6:553(b)(ba) of the Civil Code; recital (25) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. Mixed use does not create a new entitlement in every case: the former requirement of use ordinarily for private purposes could also be satisfied in some cases of mixed use. Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny · New provisions – NJT · Directive – EUR-Lex↑

  8. Section 6:553(b) of the Civil Code, in particular subpoint (bb). The exclusion applies to damage to a product caused by a defective component integrated into or inter-connected with it by the manufacturer, or falling within the manufacturer’s control. New provisions – NJT↑

  9. Sections 6:157(1), 6:159(1)–(2) and 6:168(1)–(2) of the Civil Code; Sections 12–13 of Government Decree 373/2021 (30 June). The statutory right to require the manufacturer to repair or replace defective goods applies to movable goods sold by a business to a consumer. The examples do not list every remedy and exception. Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny · Government Decree 373/2021 – NJT↑

  10. Sections 6:553(c) and 6:555(4) of the Civil Code; Article 6(1)(c) and (2), and recital (20), of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. The cost of recovery is not the only possible material loss. New provisions – NJT · Directive – EUR-Lex↑

  11. Sections 6:554(2)(f), 6:553(c) and 6:142–6:143 of the Civil Code. This concerns damage suffered by the company itself, rather than a claim that has passed or been assigned to it from a natural person. The conditions for contractual damages must be assessed separately. New provisions – NJT · Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny↑

  12. Section 55/A of the Civil Code Transitional Act, as amended by Section 15(a) of Act LIII of 2026; Section 6:559/B(3)(d)–(e) of the Civil Code. The new provisions apply to products placed on the market or put into service after 8 December, that is, from 9 December. New provisions – NJT · Act LIII of 2026 – NJT↑

  13. Section 55/A of the Civil Code Transitional Act; Section 6:559/B(3)(e) of the Civil Code. Under the statutory definition of placing on the market, the date relates to the individual product. Any subsequent substantial modification may require separate assessment. New provisions – NJT↑

  14. Section 55/A of the Civil Code Transitional Act; Section 6:559/B(3)(g) of the Civil Code. Putting into service means the first use in the EU in the course of a commercial activity, where the product has not previously been placed on the market. New provisions – NJT↑

  15. Sections 6:550(1), 6:555(4) and 6:557 of the Civil Code; recital (42) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. Liability does not depend on proof of fault on the part of the manufacturer. New provisions – NJT · Directive – EUR-Lex↑

  16. Section 6:556(1)(a)–(c) of the Civil Code. All three cases involve a rebuttable presumption of defectiveness. The injured person must prove the malfunction referred to in point (c) and the circumstances of use. New provisions – NJT↑

  17. Sections 6:556(2) and 6:555(4) of the Civil Code. The presumption concerns the causal link between the defectiveness and the damage, not the amount of the damage. New provisions – NJT↑

  18. Section 6:556(3)(a)–(b) of the Civil Code; Article 10(4)–(5) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. Excessive difficulties, the demonstration of likelihood and the disclosure of evidence must be considered together. This presumption is also rebuttable. New provisions – NJT · Directive – EUR-Lex↑

  19. Section 6:557(3) of the Civil Code. The design of the finished product and the instructions given by its manufacturer may each constitute a separate ground for exemption from liability. The component manufacturer must prove that ground. New provisions – NJT↑

  20. Sections 6:552 and 6:554(2)(a) of the Civil Code; recital (13) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. This concerns the developer of the software product, not the liability of every person involved in its development. New provisions – NJT · Directive – EUR-Lex↑

  21. Sections 6:559/B(2)(b) and 6:550(3) of the Civil Code; recitals (14)–(15) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. The absence of a charge does not mean that the activity is non-commercial. New provisions – NJT · Directive – EUR-Lex↑

  22. Sections 6:550(2), 6:559, 6:29–6:30 and 6:59(2) of the Civil Code. An agreement on the allocation of the financial burden between the parties cannot reduce their liability towards the injured person. New provisions – NJT · Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny↑

  23. Sections 6:30(1) and 6:59(2) of the Civil Code. The HUF 2 million loss and the valid 50:50 allocation are assumptions of the hypothetical example, not a generally applicable statutory allocation. Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny↑

  24. Section 6:30(1) of the Civil Code; Section 6:524(3) on the relationship between joint tortfeasors; Article 14 of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. To determine the specific apportionment between the parties, both their legal relationship and the applicable provision must be identified. Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny · Directive – EUR-Lex↑

  25. Sections 6:551(a)–(b) and 6:559 of the Civil Code. The specific provision concerns the right of recourse of the manufacturer that integrates the component. It does not exempt the developer from liability towards the injured person, nor does it provide a general rule for the rights of recourse of all other businesses. New provisions – NJT↑

  26. Section 3(2)–(3) of Act XXXIV of 2004 on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises and Support for their Development (the SME Act). The financial criterion refers to turnover or the balance sheet total. The aggregation and exclusion provisions also apply. SME Act – NJT↑

  27. Sections 3(4)–(5) and 4–5 of the SME Act; Section 6:551(a) of the Civil Code. The assessment must also take account of the provisions on state or municipal ownership, relationships between enterprises, aggregation of data and changes in classification. SME Act – NJT · New provisions – NJT↑

  28. Section 6:557(2)(a) and (5)(b)–(c), and Section 6:559/B(3)(f) of the Civil Code. In specified cases, the provision excludes exemption from liability on the ground that the defect arose subsequently; it does not exclude every defence. New provisions – NJT↑

  29. Recital (51) and Article 11(2) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853; Section 6:557(5) of the Civil Code. The preamble provides guidance on interpretation. Actual control over installation and the defect that caused the damage must be assessed in the individual case. Directive – EUR-Lex · New provisions – NJT↑

  30. Recital (51) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853; Section 6:59(2) of the Civil Code. An example of a separate statutory obligation to provide updates is found in Sections 8(1)–(2) and 17(3)–(4) of Government Decree 373/2021 (30 June), in relation to the consumer contracts governed by those provisions. Directive – EUR-Lex · Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny · Government Decree 373/2021 – NJT↑

  31. Sections 6:550(4) and 6:554(2)(a), (c) and (e) of the Civil Code. The statutory classification is not determined by the label used in the contract. New provisions – NJT↑

  32. New Sections 6:550(1)(c) and (2), and 6:554(2)(c) of the Civil Code; former Section 6:553(2). The example requires both that the manufacturer be established outside the EU and that the product be made available on the EU market for the first time. New provisions – NJT · Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny↑

  33. Sections 6:554(2)(e) and 6:550(5)(a)–(c) of the Civil Code. The distributor referred to in Section 6:550(5)(b) is the requested distributor’s own distributor, that is, the business from which it obtained the product. The time limit runs from receipt of the request. New provisions – NJT↑

  34. Former Section 6:553(3)–(4) and new Section 6:550(5) of the Civil Code. The Civil Code does not require a record to be kept of the request, but doing so makes it easier to prove when the time limit began. Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny · New provisions – NJT↑

  35. Sections 6:554(2)(a)(ab) and 6:550(1)(a) and (5) of the Civil Code. The use of the name must present the business as the manufacturer. New provisions – NJT↑

  36. Sections 6:550(4) and 6:559/B(3)(i)(ia) of the Civil Code. The provision concerns a subsequent modification of a product that has already been placed on the market or put into service. New provisions – NJT↑

  37. Sections 6:559/B(3)(i)(ib) and 6:557(4) of the Civil Code. The first condition requires the performance, purpose or type to be changed, not merely affected. The condition relating to the hazard must also be met. New provisions – NJT↑

  38. Section 6:550(5)–(6) of the Civil Code; Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. This provision of the Civil Code applies to platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders. The conditions for distributor liability must also be met. New provisions – NJT · DSA – EUR-Lex↑

  39. Sections 6:30(1), 6:59(2) and 6:77–6:78 of the Civil Code. The scope of the undertaking and the incorporation of the standard terms and conditions into the contract must be assessed separately. An undertaking to replace goods is not the same as an obligation to reimburse compensation paid. Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny↑

  40. Sections 6:59(2), 6:62(1) and 6:556(1)(a) of the Civil Code. Civil Code, gazetted text – Magyar Közlöny · New provisions – NJT↑