In database disputes, technical and economic facts are closely intertwined with legal characterisation. It is therefore essential to identify where expert opinion ends and the court's responsibility for legal decision-making begins.
Why are database disputes particularly difficult?
The commercial value of a database often lies not in the individual data items but in the work required to collect, verify, structure and make them accessible. A property listings platform, product catalogue, navigation dataset or business information system may embody substantial technical, organisational and financial effort even where the individual data items are not protected by copyright.
EU and Hungarian law address this investment through the sui generis database right. The right does not create ownership of data. It protects substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of a database. In Hungary, the relevant rules are set out in Sections 84/A–84/E of Act LXXVI of 1999 on Copyright, implementing Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases.
The apparently concise statutory conditions give rise to difficult evidentiary questions. Does the collection qualify as a database? Which costs relate to obtaining existing materials, and which relate to creating the data itself? What degree and type of investment is substantial? Has a qualitatively or quantitatively substantial part been used? Can repeated and systematic use of insubstantial parts conflict with normal exploitation or unreasonably prejudice the maker's legitimate interests?
The role of the Body of Experts on Copyright
Under Section 101(1) of the Hungarian Copyright Act, courts and authorities may request an expert opinion from the Body of Experts on Copyright (Szerzői Jogi Szakértő Testület, or SZJSZT), operating alongside the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office, on technical or specialist questions arising in copyright disputes. In practice, such opinions can carry considerable weight. They may assist the decision-maker in understanding the structure of a dataset, the relevant data-handling process, the nature of the investment, or the technical method of an alleged extraction.
That practical importance does not alter the fundamental allocation of roles. An expert identifies and evaluates facts requiring specialised knowledge. The interpretation of legislation, the final assessment of the evidence and the application of legal consequences remain the responsibility of the court or authority.
Drawing the line between expert and legal questions
Section 300 of the Hungarian Code of Civil Procedure requires expert evidence where special expertise is necessary to establish or assess a fact material to the dispute. The Hungarian Act on Judicial Experts likewise places assistance with establishing the facts at the centre of the expert's function.
Database cases are distinctive because the same issue may contain both factual and normative elements. Determining how many working hours, what IT infrastructure and which verification processes were required to build a system is ordinarily a matter of evidence and may require special expertise. Deciding whether the proven resources constitute "substantial investment" within the meaning of Section 84/A(5) of the Copyright Act also entails legal characterisation.
The same duality arises when extraction and re-utilisation are examined. IT expertise may be needed to identify which data were transferred, through what technical process, at what time and in what quantity. Whether that conduct amounts to extraction or re-utilisation under Directive 96/9/EC and Hungarian law — and whether it infringes the database right — is ultimately for the legal decision-maker.
The filter provided by EU case law
The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified the core concepts of the sui generis right in several judgments. In British Horseracing Board (C-203/02), it distinguished resources used to seek out and collect existing independent materials from resources used to create the materials that make up the contents of the database. This distinction can be decisive: not every cost associated with producing a dataset automatically qualifies as investment protected by the database right.
Applying these autonomous concepts of EU law is not merely an economic or technical exercise. An expert may identify costs, workflows and technical relationships, but defining the legally relevant categories of investment and applying the EU-law test remain matters of legal interpretation.
How should questions to the expert be framed?
A well-framed question does not ask the expert to decide the dispute. It requests the factual foundation on which the court can make its legal assessment. Depending on the case, the following questions may be appropriate:
- How is the dataset structured, and what system or method allows the individual elements to be accessed independently?
- What human, financial and technical resources were used to obtain, verify and present pre-existing data?
- Can those resources be distinguished from the costs of creating the data?
- Which elements are common to the two datasets, and what quantitative, qualitative or temporal pattern does the overlap reveal?
- By what technical route could the transfer have occurred, and can reasonable alternative sources be excluded?
- What effect did repeated queries or transfers have on the operation, maintenance and commercial exploitation of the database?
By contrast, questions such as "does the sui generis right subsist?", "has extraction taken place?" or "did the defendant infringe the right?" should generally be avoided. They ask the expert to apply the legal test in its entirety and to determine the dispute.
Why the distinction matters in practice
Where an expert opinion presents a legal conclusion instead of a factual analysis, the decision-making process may become less transparent. The parties may find it more difficult to challenge the precise path from the proven facts to the legal conclusion. The court may also be drawn into adopting a ready-made characterisation rather than independently applying the law.
A clear allocation of responsibilities does not diminish the significance of the SZJSZT. On the contrary, a carefully defined mandate increases the evidential value of its work. A precise account of the technical and economic facts, a transparent methodology, and an express statement of assumptions and limitations provide a more reliable basis for judicial decision-making than a categorical conclusion that merges expert and judicial functions.
Conclusion
Expert assistance is often indispensable in litigation concerning sui generis database protection. Special expertise, however, does not confer authority to decide questions of law. Under the appropriate division of functions, the expert identifies and assesses the technical, economic and IT facts; the court characterises those facts under EU and Hungarian law.
From a litigation strategy perspective, the wording of the proposed questions is therefore crucial. Questions should focus on facts, methodology and causal relationships. Careful framing improves not only the quality of the expert evidence but also the transparency and fairness of legal decision-making.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice in any individual matter.