1. Introduction
This article examines the meaning of “author’s supervision” as invoked in practice during alterations, and the extent to which the original architect may influence subsequent modifications. The issue is not merely theoretical: in planning and development processes, developers regularly encounter the question of whether author’s supervision entails a right of approval or constitutes a different and more limited role within the copyright regime governing architectural works.
2. Author’s supervision within the framework of the Hungarian Copyright Act
Hungary’s Act LXXVI of 1999 on Copyright (hereinafter: the “Copyright Act”) does not define the concept of “author’s supervision”, nor does it recognise it as an independent copyright or a distinct entitlement. With regard to architectural works, the Copyright Act regulates the following relevant rights:
- the right to authorise use (Sections 16 and 29);
- the right to the integrity of the work (Section 13); and
- the prohibition of unauthorised alteration of architectural works (Section 67).
Although these rights afford significant protection to the author, they do not give rise to a continuous right of control or approval in the course of the design process of an alteration. The relevant provisions of the Copyright Act define the author’s rights to authorise uses of the work and provide for enforcement and remedies in cases of infringement. Consequently, there is nothing in the Copyright Act to suggest that a designer has any right that would amount to a “permanent control mechanism”.
Within the framework of the Hungarian Copyright Act, the exercise of copyright in architectural works necessarily coexists with the property rights held by the owner of the relevant building. Judicial practice has consistently held that the owner of a building has the right to carry out reconstruction, alteration and modernisation projects, and that the architect’s copyright cannot place unlimited restrictions on such right. Ownership rights collide with copyright limitations only where the planned modifications affect the essential characteristics of the work or endanger the author’s honour or reputation. For a detailed discussion of the considerations for balancing ownership rights and copyrights, please see a previous article on this matter.
Both the Budapest Court of Appeal and the Curia, Hungary’s highest court, have consistently ruled that interventions connected to the proper use, modernisation, or change of function of a building do not in themselves grant a right of prohibition to the original designer, nor do they create a “supervisory” right that can place general restrictions on the exercise of ownership rights (see e.g. 9.Pf.20.125/2024/7-II.; Gf.I.30.275/2015/10.).
3. The proper interpretation of Section 18 (6) of the Code of Ethics and Disciplinary Rules of the Chamber of Hungarian Architects
Section 18 (6) of the Code of Ethics and Disciplinary Rules of the Chamber of Hungarian Architects (the “Code”) states that “if the plans for the reconstruction, alteration, extension or modernisation of a completed building are not prepared by the original designer, the intervening designer shall, at the request of the original designer, ensure that author’s supervision is provided.” The interpretation of this rule is of particular practical importance, as the majority of disputes concerning the meaning and legal nature of “author’s supervision” are connected to it.
Section 18 (6) of the Code expressly makes the obligation to ensure author’s supervision conditional upon the “request of the original designer”. This wording clearly presupposes a right vested in a specific individual and requires an active and express assertion by the original designer. Both grammatically and systematically, the notion of a “request” implies a living and legally capable author who is able to exercise this right. In the absence of such a person (for example, in the event of the original designer’s death), the prerequisite set out in the rule cannot be fulfilled; consequently, the rule in that case is ab ovo inapplicable.
In the general meaning of the Code, the “provision of author’s supervision” denotes a professional activity rather than an independent legal entitlement. Its substance lies not in a legal act but in the professional monitoring of the design process and the opportunity to formulate observations. Neither a grammatical nor a systematic interpretation of the Code supports the conclusion that author’s supervision entails a right of approval or prohibition, or the power to halt an investment project. Ensuring supervision constitutes an opportunity for professional participation, not a decision-making power.
It should be emphasised that the holders of moral rights under the Hungarian Copyright Act cannot be equated with the concept of the “original designer” for the purposes of applying Section 18 (6) of the Code. Such right holders do not possess creative status, did not participate in the preparation of the original design, and do not perform a professional design function in relation to the specific work. Accordingly, the exercise of moral rights does not necessarily entail the possibility of performing author’s supervision. Section 18 (6) designates a personal, professional form of participation vested exclusively in the original designer. Legal succession in copyright does not create a new authorship status, nor does it transfer the original designer’s professional standing; it extends solely to the exercise of the moral rights specified by law.
Furthermore, the wording “ensure” used in Section 18 (6) does not, under either grammatical or systematic interpretation, support the view that the intervening designer has an obligation to make decisions or grant approvals. The term “ensure” refers to the possibility of exercising supervisory activity, not to guaranteeing any particular outcome, and cannot be transformed into a binding control mechanism.
In the light of the above, it appears reasonable to argue that neither the Hungarian Copyright Act nor Section 18 (6) of the Code creates an independent copyright entitlement, grants a right of approval or veto, or extends to the holders of moral rights. The exercise of author’s supervision therefore cannot be interpreted as a right of approval or veto over design decisions, as the Code provides exclusively for a form of professional participation in this respect.
This does not, of course, preclude the parties from agreeing, within the framework of contractual freedom under civil law, on the terms of the original designer’s (or even his or her successors’) involvement, the manner in which author’s supervision is to be exercised, or even approval mechanisms. However, such an agreement will not constitute generally applicable rights arising from a statute but contractual positions under the law of obligations, deriving from the specific agreement of the parties and to be assessed in light of all the circumstances of the individual case.
***
Author: Zsanett Szabó
Balázs Bagi, a law student, contributed to this article.
If you are interested in more articles on construction law, please visit our website: Construction Papers
Copyright © 2026 CERHA HEMPEL Dezső and Partners – all rights reserved.
Mailing address:
CERHA HEMPEL Dezső és Társai Ügyvédi Iroda
1011 Budapest
Fő utca 14-18.
Magyarország
E-mail:
zsanett.szabo@cerhahempel.hu
