Suchergebnisse

Is it necessary to renew the regulation of company law from time to time? On the one hand, company law reacts with its regulative environment, therefore the constant amendment, improvement of its rules seems reasonable. Yet, on the other hand, the core of company law is pure and stable, and there is no need to reinvent it. Hungarian company law has always been subject of constant modifi cations, yet we regard only three instances for its true renewal. The fi rst was the coming into force of the fi rst Act on Business Associations in 1988, which served as the means for the creation of market capitalism and thus led to the political changes that followed. The second was the coming into force of the Civil Code in 2014, which implemented a mainly default approach in the regulation of legal persons, a clear principle providing a wide range of freedom for legal entities in their internal affairs. The third, however, was not a planned and designed renewal, as it was forced by the new coronavirus pandemic. The rules to apply in the crisis overwrote even some of the hard-core rules of company law for the sake of fl exibility and simplicity – is it going to be the next trend in the course of renewal?

In my opinion, third-party liability insurance contracts could be an appropriate device in the future to replace the damaged reputation of shared capital described in the Hungarian Civil Code. Of course, in the future, it would be necessary to modify the rules of credit practices and creditworthiness assessments. I take the view that in order to make damage statistics more accurate and new insurance products more independent, this new insurance product called third-party liability insurance for share capital should be separated in the function of insurers by way of modifying the Hungarian Insurance Code. The above-mentioned ideas are at the moment theoretical, thoughtprovoking and conversation-generating ideas only, and the detailed new rules and norms should be established and codifi ed following further research.

"The study deals with the atypical employment relationship of managerial employees. One of the reasons for the atypical nature of the managerial employment relationship is that not all managers are employed in an employment relationship since the tasks can also be performed in an agency relationship, and some authors even consider the latter relationship to be more suitable for settling the rights and obligations of the parties. This atypicality is reinforced by the fact that the current legislation allows the manager's employment contract to derogate from the provisions of the second part of the collective agreement and that the collective agreement does not cover the manager. The study also describes the liability of managerial employees and the rules on confl icts of interest and noncompetition that apply to them."