Blog
Blog » FROM PEN TO PENDRIVE - PART VI: PERMISSIVE LABOUR LAW ON E-WRITING IN HUNGARY?
FROM PEN TO PENDRIVE - PART VI: PERMISSIVE LABOUR LAW ON E-WRITING IN HUNGARY?
15 June 2023
In our last article we summarised the rules on e-writing in employment law. In this article we will look at judicial practice in regard with the above to examine how lenient the courts are with regard to certain documents.
The previous part of the article is available here: FROM PEN TO PENDRIVE - PART V: GENERAL RULES ON E-WRITING IN LABOUR LAW IN HUNGARY - Blog - Smartlegal
First of all, we would like to point out that, although in judicial practice we have repeatedly encountered a more permissive approach to e-signatures for certain documents, the legal literature still considers the classic paper-based procedure to be the safest.
In the following, we will look at the decisions taken on certain documents in relation to non-classical written documents.
1. Termination of the employment
After a badly done job, the employer informed the employee by text message that he could "receive his notice on Monday". At the meeting on Monday, as the court of first instance rightly pointed out, the text message sent earlier was not subject to the discussion. Later it became a question if the text message terminated the employment, in connection with which the Curia held that the SMS message could not be considered to be a legal declaration capable of producing legal effects.[1]
As in the above decision, labour law generally takes a stricter approach to dismissal.
The employer notified the employee of his/her extraordinary termination by MSN by scanning the written and signed termination letter and sending it in JPG format to the employee's MSN mailbox. The employer then sent the employee a text message inviting him to use MSN. The employee logged on to the MSN program and, using the program as a communication interface, declared in writing to the employer that he had received the notice of termination sent in JPG format and that he was able to open and read it. The employer's extraordinary notice of termination was duly recorded in writing before being sent via MSN and was digitised by the employer's fax machine by scanning it. The employer therefore produced the original paper version of the document, which was digitised.[2]
Although in the above case the court was more permissive, in our view the analogy drawn in the judgment is only applicable in cases where a paper version is also produced.
2. Collective redundancies
In an e-mail reply to the employee's e-mail, the employer informed the employee that, as he was also affected by the collective redundancy, his employment would also be terminated. According to the Curia, the e-mail complied with the requirement of being in writing, was capable of reproducing the information unchanged, and identified the person making the declaration and the date on which the declaration was made.[3]
3. Mandatory written form at the request of the employee
The employee worked as a chemotherapy nurse. Her job description contains 38 tasks, of which she only actually provided care for chemotherapy patients. The employer sent an email to the employee informing her that she was expected to work in inpatient care from July, but she refused to fulfil this task, and she asked the employer to give her the instruction in written form (in case if the employee request it the written format is mandatory[4]). The employer terminated the employment for refusing the instruction.
The second instance court and the Curia also found that the instruction given by e-mail met the criteria of a written legal declaration, since the e-mail was capable of identifying the person and the date of the declaration and the information contained in the declaration - the instruction - could be recalled unchanged.[5]
While it can be seen that in some cases the courts are more permissive in employment disputes, the general conclusion is that it is safer for the employer to make important employment agreements or unilateral statements (e.g. employment contract, termination) in the traditional way, i.e. by means of a physical document with a wet signature.
-
HUNGARY – PERSONAL SCOPE EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION CLAUSE TO NON-SIGNATORY UNDER BRUSSELS IBIS
Does the principle of independence of the choice-of-court agreement require that parties shall expressly transfer the dispute resolution clause in case of transfer of the main contract? When can the personal scope of a jurisdiction agreement be extended to a non-signatory? A Hungarian appellate court decided upon these questions under the Brussels Ibis Regulation in a recent judgment
Read more » -
SETTING ASIDE ARBITRAL AWARDS IN HUNGARY
Given that there is no right of appeal in arbitration proceedings, it is important to be aware of what other legal remedies are available to you against an arbitral award. According to the Hungarian Arbitration Act, the parties may request the competent state court to set aside the award, which is a “mandatory” remedy, which cannot be waived by the parties in advance.
Read more » -
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR BRAND WITH TRADEMARK IN HUNGARY AND IN THE EU
Trademark protection is a very simple but effective method to protect your company’s brand, including the business name, logo, slogan, and much more. If you are doing business in the EU, you have multiple options to acquire trademark protection. In case you want to know more about trademarks than the ™ and ® symbols, this short article will surely pique your interest.
Read more »