In a recently adopted uniformity decision, the Supreme Court of Hungary ruled on how long a claimant initiating an administrative lawsuit may amend their statement of claim. According to the decision, amendments are possible beyond the 30-day time limit for filing the claim only in a very limited set of circumstances. This interpretation significantly narrows the claimant’s opportunities in administrative litigation.
Anyone who considers an administrative authority’s decision (e.g. issued by the tax authority, the competition authority, or a consumer protection authority) to be unlawful may initiate administrative court proceedings and request judicial review of the lawfulness of that decision. An administrative action is commenced by submitting a statement of claim, which generally must be filed within 30 days of notification of the contested decision. In the claim, the claimant must identify the “legal injury” caused by the administrative activity, that is, the grounds and legal arguments on which the authority’s decision (or omission) is being challenged.
Amending the Claim During the Proceedings
The law allows the claimant to amend the claim at the latest at the first hearing of the proceedings. The statutory text imposes only one explicit limitation: extension to a clearly separable part of the decision that was not originally challenged is only possible within the 30-day time limit for filing the claim.
While the rule appears clear, the Supreme Court’s case law had developed several conflicting interpretations as to what types of amendments to a claim are permissible before the close of the first hearing. The emergence of a uniform judicial practice was hindered by the fact that the Code of Administrative Court Procedure does not define the (otherwise fundamental) concepts of “legal injury” or “amendment of the claim,” leaving their interpretation to the courts adjudicating individual cases.
According to one interpretation, once the time limit for filing the claim has expired, the claimant may only elaborate on or clarify arguments already presented. Under this view, introducing fundamentally new considerations that differ from the original grounds of the claim goes beyond an amendment and would redirect the proceedings, and is therefore not permissible.
By contrast, in other cases courts considered it permissible, within the framework of amending the claim, to identify additional legal injuries and to submit further legal arguments up until the end of the first hearing.
In its newly adopted uniformity decision, the Supreme Court endorsed the first, more restrictive interpretation, which is now binding on all courts.
Shrinking Opportunities in Administrative Lawsuits
The Supreme Court’s uniformity decision significantly restricts the range of submissions that may qualify as permissible amendments to a claim. Under the now authoritative interpretation, legal arguments not raised within the time limit for filing the claim may later either not become part of the scope of the proceedings at all, or only if they are closely connected to arguments already advanced in the claim.
As a result, the decision narrows the claimant’s opportunities when seeking legal remedies against administrative activity. Moreover, there are types of proceedings in which the precise reasoning underlying the contested decision may not yet be known at the time the claim is filed. In light of the new decision, such cases present particular challenges for future claimants.
Preparation, Preparation, Preparation
In light of the Supreme Court’s new position, new strategies for administrative litigation must be developed. The focus clearly shifts to the very beginning of the procedure—the initial 30 days—since all legal injuries should, as far as possible, be identified within the time limit for filing the claim, and a comprehensive and detailed legal argument must be developed at that stage, from which only limited deviation will be possible later in the proceedings.
In certain cases, the 30-day time limit for filing the claim may be disproportionately short, which is why the collection and development of legal arguments should begin as early as possible, upon becoming aware of the unlawful decision. Only in this way can it be ensured that all relevant legal arguments become part of the proceedings within the time limit, enabling the court to carry out a full review of the authority’s decision. In light of the uniformity decision, timely and thorough preparation will be even more important than before for those seeking to successfully litigate against administrative authorities.
In this article, we analysed Uniformity Decision No. 12/2025 (case reference Jpe.IV.60.056/2024/12).