2026-05-04 | IT Law

1. Complete Restructuring of Procedural Fees

The most significant change lies in the transformation of the financing model. The legislator abolished the costs previously borne by applicants and introduced an asymmetric fee structure imposed on service providers.

Free Procedure for Applicants: Contrary to the previous regulatory framework, the initiation of dispute resolution has become entirely free of charge for users. The procedural fee payable by applicants has been uniformly set at HUF 0.

Differentiated Fee Payment for Service Providers (Platforms): The costs are now borne by technology companies, depending on the outcome of the procedure:

• In the event of a settlement: If the parties reach an agreement during the procedure (and it is approved by the Council), the service provider is required to pay a procedural fee of HUF 50,000.
• In the event of the applicant’s success: If the application is found to be well-founded in whole or in part, the fee imposed on the service provider may reach up to HUF 150,000, and the provider may also be obliged to reimburse the applicant’s reasonable costs.
• Protective exemption from fees for platforms: The legislator safeguarded platforms against abusive or manifestly unfounded applications. Where the Online Platform Dispute Resolution Council (OPVT) rejects an application without substantive examination (for instance, due to formal deficiencies or because it is clearly unfounded), the service provider is required to pay no fee (HUF 0).

2. Procedural and Terminological Refinements

Beyond addressing financial aspects, the Decree also aligns the logic of case handling with digital realities through certain textual clarifications:

• “Substantive Examination” instead of “Hearing”: In Section 20(2)(c), the former expression “scheduling of a hearing” has been replaced by the concept of “substantive examination.” As, in the vast majority of proceedings before the OPVT, no personal or online hearing is required (nor conducted), disputes are adjudicated on the basis of written submissions. This amendment reflects the actual course of proceedings.
• Correction of a technical reference: In Section 14(1)(b), an internal cross-reference has been corrected, replacing the wording “paragraph (1)” with the more accurate “paragraph (2).”

Summary

Decree No. 5/2026 (III. 16.) of the NMHH shifts the previous framework toward a user-friendly approach that materially facilitates the enforcement of rights. Reducing applicants’ procedural fees to HUF 0 removes the primary barrier for complainants, while the imposition of significant fixed costs on platforms incentivizes service providers to improve their complaint-handling systems in order to avoid proceedings before the OPVT.