The National Order of Hungarian Judicial Officers is concerned about the numerous inaccurate, misleading and, in some instances, expressly inflammatory statements concerning the operation of judicial enforcement that have appeared in the press and on social media in recent times.

Judicial enforcement is an area that affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, the rights of creditors and debtors, the operation of businesses and, ultimately, the economy as a whole. For this reason, we consider it particularly important that public and political debate on the subject should be based on facts, the legislation in force and a proper understanding of how the system actually operates. Inflammatory communication does not resolve a single enforcement case, nor does it reduce the debt of a single debtor; however, it is capable of further increasing social tensions and the risk of verbal or even physical aggression against persons involved in enforcement proceedings.

The Order also supports prohibiting the payment of dividends to bailiffs whose service has been suspended or is temporarily inactive; however, under the current legal framework, it has no authority to impose such a restriction. One of the issues most frequently discussed in the current public debate concerns dividends that may be paid by bailiffs’ offices.

In this regard, we wish to make it clear at the outset that neither the Presidency of the National Order of Hungarian Judicial Officers nor its administrative body considers it acceptable for a judicial officer who has been suspended from service or who is not actually performing his or her duties to receive dividends from the profits of a judicial officers’s office during the period of suspension or temporary inactivity. It is equally important, however, that the public understand precisely that the Order cannot prohibit this by a decision of its own.

A judicial officers’s office is an independent legal entity. The distribution of its profits and payments due to its members are governed by the Act on Judicial Enforcement, the Civil Code and the relevant provisions of company and corporate law. The suspension of a judicial officer from service does not, in itself, automatically terminate his or her membership in the bailiff’s office. As long as the law does not expressly prohibit such payments, the Order may not, acting within its own powers, adopt a decision excluding the exercise of a corporate right conferred by law.

Neither the National Order of Hungarian Judicial Officers, nor its Presidency or administrative body, may adopt a rule on its own authority that prohibits such dividend payments without statutory authorisation. A legislative amendment is required for this purpose; however, none of the aforementioned bodies is a legislative authority. The Order identified this issue previously and initiated an amendment to the relevant legislation. In 2026, we submitted our proposal to the legislator, this time together with specific draft legislative language that would establish the legal basis for restricting dividend payments during periods of suspension or temporary inactivity. To date, however, the necessary legislative amendment has not been adopted.

It is therefore misleading to hold the Order accountable for an issue in relation to which the Order itself has initiated reform but, in the absence of legislative powers, has no authority to implement that reform.

Public debate also frequently conflates the respective functions of the different actors within the judicial enforcement system. The Presidency of the National Order of Hungarian Judicial Officers is the elected representative body of the judicial officers’ profession. The Order’s administrative body performs the professional, administrative, registration and supervisory functions prescribed by law. Neither of these bodies is a legislative authority. They cannot amend the Act on Judicial Enforcement by their own decision, rewrite the Civil Code, establish new prohibitions under company law, or withdraw rights granted by legislation currently in force.

At the same time, one of the Order’s responsibilities is to draw the legislator’s attention to problems identified in the course of practical operation and to submit professional proposals for their resolution. The Order has regularly done so in recent years.

The Order has also initiated several measures aimed at protecting debtors. It is not widely known that, over recent years, the Order has formulated a number of legislative amendment proposals specifically intended to improve the position of debtors.

These proposals have included, among others:

• further expanding the possibility of payment by instalments;

• introducing a mechanism under which, once genuine and continuous repayment has commenced, the interest burden on the debt would no longer continue to increase in the same manner;

• abolishing the possibility of selling movable assets at exceptionally low prices, in some cases amounting to as little as 1 per cent of their value;

• as well as further amendments aimed at reducing the vulnerability of debtors and encouraging voluntary compliance.

A significant proportion of these proposals have not, to date, resulted in legislative amendments. The Order therefore rejects the generalised portrayal according to which the enforcement profession opposes every change intended to strengthen the protection of debtors.

Organisational restructuring does not extinguish debts. In the course of the public debate, it is particularly important to clarify one fundamental point. The restructuring of the judicial enforcement system does not cause an existing debt to cease to exist and, in the absence of repayment, does not reduce its amount.

It is not the judicial officer who creates the debt, nor is it the judicial officer who decides whether the debtor is required to pay. Enforcement proceedings are initiated on the basis of a previously issued enforceable decision or other enforceable instrument, which includes not only the claim subject to enforcement but also the costs incurred in ordering enforcement, over which the judicial officer has no power of disposition. If, from tomorrow, the enforcement organisation were to operate under a different name, if another institution were to perform its functions, or if the legal status of judicial officers were changed, existing claims would nevertheless remain in force. The relevant question, therefore, is not whether enforcement should exist, but what kind of system is capable of ensuring the enforcement of final and binding decisions while at the same time adequately protecting the rights of both debtors and creditors.

Abolishing the enforcement system from one day to the next would create serious operational risks. A large number of enforcement cases are currently pending in Hungary. These include claims by private individuals, businesses, employees, landlords, financial institutions, utility providers, public bodies and other organisations. Rapidly abolishing or completely restructuring such a system without appropriate transitional rules, a detailed impact assessment, adequate IT preparation and a professional handover would create a risk that the processing of pending cases could slow down or temporarily come to a standstill. The consequences would affect not only creditors, but debtors as well.

The rights of debtors could be impaired, the rights of creditors could be impaired, payments could be delayed, the handling of several hundred thousand pending cases could become uncertain, and disruptions could also occur in the operation of electronic systems.

The specialised professional, legal, financial, administrative and IT expertise required for the handling of enforcement proceedings is currently concentrated within bailiffs’ offices and the administrative body of the Order. This expertise cannot be replaced overnight. In the Order’s professional assessment, any transition to a system based exclusively on salaried employees would also require particularly careful examination of its impact on effectiveness. If the actual recovery rate of claims were to decline significantly, the consequences would extend far beyond the enforcement system itself. The enforceability and recoverability of claims is one of the components of economic confidence. If a creditor has a lower likelihood of recovering a claim that has been finally and bindingly adjudicated, this increases the risks associated with lending. In the longer term, this could result in stricter lending conditions or more expensive financing. A reform of this magnitude is therefore not merely an organisational issue, but an economic and social one as well.

The professional history of those speaking on social media cannot be disregarded either. The Order also wishes to draw attention to the fact that former bailiffs are among those advocating the complete abolition or nationalisation of the enforcement system on social media, including in certain Facebook groups characterised by particularly heated rhetoric. Everyone is, of course, entitled to express an opinion on the operation of the system. At the same time, the public is also entitled to be aware of the relevant background when assessing such statements. In cases where the service of a former bailiff was terminated on the basis of a final disciplinary decision or another final and binding decision due to serious, systematic or repeated infringements of the law, that circumstance cannot be disregarded when the person concerned makes assertions concerning the operation of the judicial enforcement system as a whole. In the field of debt recovery and judicial enforcement, it is precisely such infringements that must be addressed with the utmost determination. The Order therefore asks the public to assess all such statements in light of the facts, final and binding decisions and the actual professional record of the person concerned.

Impact assessment, professional consultation and responsible public dialogue are required. The National Order of Hungarian Judicial Officers does not maintain that every element of the current enforcement system must remain unchanged. On the contrary, for years we have initiated reforms capable of strengthening the protection of debtors, increasing the transparency of the system, clarifying the rights and obligations of judicial officers and reducing costs borne by debtors, while at the same time preserving the legitimate interests of creditors. Necessary reforms can only be effective, however, if they address genuine problems.

Before fundamentally transforming a system that handles several hundred thousand pending cases and ensures the effective implementation of judicial decisions, detailed legal, economic, budgetary, IT and social impact assessments, as well as substantive professional and public consultation, are required. The Chamber remains ready to participate in any professional consultation aimed at establishing a more transparent, fairer and more effective enforcement system that adequately protects the rights of both debtors and creditors. Achieving this, however, requires facts instead of inflammatory rhetoric, accurate information instead of generalisations, and professionally sound solutions.

Yours faithfully,
National Order of Hungarian Judicial Officers

(Any quotation of this statement in the press, or reproduction of its contents, may be made only verbatim and with the original wording and meaning preserved without alteration.)