Széchenyi Thermal Bath, Budapest. Victor Malyushev via Unsplash.

Sorry, folks.  Set aside thoughts of goulash, the Gabor Sisters, and nice chess games at a thermal bath… you’re litigating here, not sightseeing.  But with a Hungarian defendant, the procedure before you really isn’t overly challenging.  Service in Hungary is subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention.  This holds true regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter.  You’ve got three ways to get it done:

  1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
  2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
  3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

Here’s how it’s done in Hungary:

Article 5 Service

  • Translate the documents. It’s required by Hungary’s declaration to Article 5(3), period.  (It’s not about the defendant’s competence in English.)
  • Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
  • Send to the appropriate Central Authority, in this case Ministry of Justice in Budapest.
  • Sit tight. It may take a while—several months from submission to return of proof.

Article 10 alternative methods

  • They simply aren’t available, because Hungary objects to them all. Article 5 is the only way it can be done.

Seriously—that’s all there is to it.  The method is straightforward and simple.  Hungary’s declarations and Central Authority information can be found here.

Bonus practice tip… if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client.  The plaintiff may not have done it correctly.  [That actually happened once, with a defendant in Norway, and her lawyers were smart enough to fight the issue.  The Washington Court of Appeals erroneously thought going outside the Central Authority was okay, but their Supreme Court saw the matter differently.]