Nonprofit organizations in Hungary

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511712128.012

7.1 - Nonprofit organizations in Hungary

from 7 - Transformation countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2011

Zoltán Csehi

Edited by

Klaus J. Hopt and

Thomas Von Hippel

Show author details

Zoltán Csehi: Affiliation:
Pázmány Péter Catholic University Budapest
Klaus J. Hopt: Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Germany
Thomas Von Hippel: Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Germany

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

The term “nonprofit organizations”

Nonprofit

The legal term “nonprofit” is widely used in Hungarian sociological and legal materials. Even before the collapse of the socialist system the term was regularly used by sociologists, and this only increased after the change of the political system. Recently the term “nonprofit” has been used even in legal materials, acts and other legal instruments as well. The new Act on Companies no. IV of 2006 (“New Company Act”), applicable from 1 July 2006, which partially came into force only on 1 July 2007, uses the term “nonprofit business company”. The actual word “nonprofit” was not translated into Hungarian: in the original Hungarian version, “nonprofit business company” is translated as nonprofit gazdasági társaság (section 4(1) New Company Act).

The pioneering act on nonprofit organizations in Hungary (Act no. CLVI of 1997; the “Nonprofit Act” or “NPO Act”) was given a different title – in Hungarian közhasznú szervezetekről – which can be translated as “on public purpose organizations”. The Hungarian wording is different, though the meaning is the same as in the definition of the New Company Act.

The minister of education passed a decree on the terms and conditions of examinations and job requirements for the education of nonprofit administrators and nonprofit managers, including training for where the wording “nonprofit” should be used. The purpose of the decree is clearly to provide a specified education funded and granted for nonprofit organizations.

Type: Chapter
Information: Comparative Corporate Governance of Non-Profit Organizations , pp. 325 - 378

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712128.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Közgazdasági Szemle XXXVIII/1991 18–30

Közgazdasági Szemle XLIII/1996 905–919

Jogállam 1996/3–4

Éva, KutiHívjuk Talán Nonprofitnak…, [We should call nonprofit…] Budapest 1998, p. 220Google Scholar

Hopt, “The German Two-Tier Board (Aufsichtsract) – A German View on Corporate Governance” in Hopt, and Wymeersch, (eds.), Comparative Corporative Governance, Berlin – New York 1997, p. 4Google Scholar

Zimmermann, , The Law of Obligations. Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition, Oxford 1996, p. 415CrossRef Google Scholar

Allen, “The Corporative Director's Fiduciary Duty of Care and the Business Judgment Rule under U.S. Corporate Law”, in Hopt, , Kanda, , Roe, , Wymeersh, and Prigge, (eds.), Comparative Corporate Governance, Oxford 1998, p. 317Google Scholar

Baums, and Scott, , “Taking Shareholder Protection Seriously? Corporate Governance in the United States and Germany”, 53 The American Journal of Comparative Law (2005), p. 32Google Scholar

Zweigert, and Kötz, , An Introduction to the Comparative Law, 2nd edn., Oxford 1992, p. 411Google Scholar

Carstensen, , “Vorgaben für die Vermögensverwaltung der Stiftung nach Gesetz, Satzung und Rechtsprechung”, 3 Zeitschrift zum Stiftungswesen (2005), pp. 90–98

Wieacker, , “Zur Theorie der Juristischen Person des Privatrechts”, in Forsthoff, , Weber, and Wieacker, (eds.), Festschrift für E. R. Huber zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1973, pp. 339–383Google Scholar

Roth, , “Ueber Stiftungen”, Jahrbuch für die Dogmatik des Heutigen Römischen und Deutschen Privatrechts 1 (1957) 189–220, p. 205Google Scholar

Borgolte, , “Die Stiftungen des Mittelalters in rechts- und sozialhistorischer Sicht”, in 74 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Kan. Abt.) 1988, 71–94, p. 84Google Scholar

Wernicke, , “Vorstandskontrolle in der Stiftung”, in zeitschrift für erbrecht und vermögensnachfolge 2003, pp. 301–306

Schumacher, , Die konzernverbundene Stiftung, Münster et al. 1998, p. 60

Briem, : “Die rechtliche Stellung des Begünstigten einer Privatstiftung”, in Gassner, , Göth, , Gröhs, and Lang, (eds.), Privatstiftungen: Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten in der Praxis, Manz, Wien 2000, p. 88Google Scholar

Größ, , “Rechtsfragen der Begünstigtenstellung”, in Doralt, and Kalss, (eds.), Aktuelle Fragen des Privatstiftungsrechts – eine Bilanz nach Sieben Jahren, Linde Verlag, Wien 2001, pp. 205–245Google Scholar

Strasser, , “Gedanken zu einem Begünstigten zusammengesetzten Beirat einer Privatstiftung”, 122 Juristische Blätter, pp. 487–496 (2000, Heft 8)Google Scholar

Reuter, , “Die Haftung des Stiftungsvorstands gegenüber der Stiftung, Dritten und dem Fiskus”, Non Profit Law Yearbook 2002, 157, 172

“Rechnungslegung, Transparenz und Publizität”, in Prändl, , Geppert, and Göth, (eds.), Corporate Governance Kodex. Praxishandbuch, Wien 2003, pp. 117–137

Kilian, , “Kapitalerhaltung contra Zweckerfüllung – Ein praktischer Fall” zeitschrift zum stiftungswesen 2005, pp. 242–247

Book contents

7.1 - Nonprofit organizations in Hungary

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive