Exclusion grounds and self-cleaning: Kbt. 62-64. §, the Integrity Authority register, and the new deforestation exclusion ground

What is an exclusion ground in public procurement?

An exclusion ground is a circumstance named in legislation whose presence bars the economic operator from participating in a public procurement procedure and prevents its tender from being evaluated on the merits. The catalogue is arranged in two separate blocks by Kbt. 62. § and 63. §, with different operating logic.

The exclusion grounds under Kbt. 62-63. § should be kept separate from the other three categories in the Kbt.: suitability criteria, award criteria, and the contract-signature condition. The four-category distinction is also summarised from the tenderer's perspective by KözbeszGuru. A correctly completed ESPD stands or falls on this distinction. The Grand Commentary section cited above is from 2021 and does not yet reflect the November 2024 amendments adopted by Act LXIV of 2024.

What are the sub-points of the mandatory exclusion grounds?

Kbt. 62. § (1) lists the mandatory exclusion grounds by letter. The current catalogue contains sub-points a) aa) to ah), together with letters b) to o). Points p) and q) were removed in 2021, and a new deforestation sub-point has been in force from 30 December 2025.

The mandatory exclusion grounds currently in force under Kbt. 62. § (1) (overview)

Letter	Subject
a) aa) to ah)	Final conviction in the past five years for specified criminal offences (corruption, budget fraud, terrorism, participation in a criminal organisation, human trafficking, money laundering, tax fraud, and further offences falling under a))
b)	Public dues (tax, customs, social-security contributions) overdue by more than one year
c)	Being under bankruptcy, liquidation, voluntary winding-up, or compulsory strike-off. Kbt. 62. § (1a) allows the contracting authority to retain the tenderer despite point c), if it has taken measures that reasonably ensure completion of the procedure.
d)	Final decision imposing a ban on the pursuit of the economic activity
e)	Failure to comply with the registration obligation
f)	Breach relating to the establishment of an employment relationship (wages, employment, occupational safety)
g) main sub-point	Final exclusion from a public procurement procedure within the past year for false data disclosure
h)	Serious breach of a previous public procurement or concession contract
i)	Final judgment against the legal representative or executive officer for an offence under a)
j)	Ethical or professional breach established by a final decision
k) ka) to kc)	Lack of transparency of the beneficial owner (offshore, unidentifiable chain, trust asset management as well, following the 1 January 2026 extension)
l)	Breach of an information or declaration obligation prescribed by law, established by a final decision
m)	Supply of false data or a false declaration in the public procurement procedure
n)	Final penalty-imposing decision of the competition authority (GVH) for an agreement restricting competition (cartel prohibition)
o)	Final judicial finding of human trafficking or forced labour

How do you evidence the absence of exclusion grounds?

The evidence rules are two-stage: first an ESPD declaration, then (for the winning tenderer) itemised documentary evidence. The details of the system are regulated jointly by the Kbt. and Government Decree 321/2015. (X. 30.).

The steps of the two-stage evidence process

It runs in three phases: the ESPD declaration, the call to the winning tenderer, then itemised evidence. In the first evaluation round the tenderer does not have to attach a stack of official extracts.

1. 1

   ESPD declaration

   As part of the tender or request to participate, the economic operator completes the European Single Procurement Document (ESPD, referred to in Hungarian as EEKD) and declares the absence of the exclusion grounds under Kbt. 62-63. §. This preliminary form of evidence is sufficient for the first evaluation round.

2. 2

   Call to the winning tenderer

   At the end of the evaluation the contracting authority typically calls upon the highest-ranked valid tenderer to submit the itemised documentary evidence.

3. 3

   Itemised documentary evidence

   The tenderer, once notified, submits a company register extract, a NAV public-dues clearance certificate, criminal-record extracts on the executive officers, GVH register data, beneficial-owner data, and the further relevant documents. For operators established in Hungary, the source table in the KH Council Guidance sets out what is obtained from where.

Five recurring errors at the evaluation stage

In practice five error patterns account for the majority of evaluation deadlocks. Point 4 is the misreading of the limitation period, one of the doctrinal points that has been slowest to improve in recent years.

1. 01

   Incomplete or perfunctory ESPD

   The tenderer completes the ESPD in a purely formal way, the right of representation is not evidenced, or a general declaration replaces the detailed answers. The evaluation stalls at the moment of the call for evidence.

2. 02

   Missing declaration from the capacity-providing entity

   The separate declaration from the capacity-providing entity is missing in the final moment of the evaluation. The evaluation stalls at the threshold of invalidity.

3. 03

   Missing register entry for a foreign tenderer

   The contracting authority cannot interpret the absence of a Hungarian company-register entry for a foreign tenderer and does not accept the register of the tenderer's own country in its place. The KH Council Guidance expressly addresses the modes of evidence for a foreign operator.

4. 04

   Miscalculating the time limit on old criminal convictions

   The time limit under Kbt. 62. § (1) a) is often miscalculated. The statute links exclusion to the establishment of the criminal offence by a final court judgment within the past five years, and it applies for as long as the operator has not been released from the disadvantages attached to a criminal record.

   Kbt. 62. § (1) a) CJEU Case C-124/17 (Vossloh Laeis)

5. 05

   Failure to re-check after a subcontractor is added later

   When a new subcontractor is brought in, the Kbt. exclusion-ground review is mandatory, including at the contract-signature stage. If the re-check is skipped, the error surfaces at the contract-signature stage.

CJEU Case C-124/17 (Vossloh Laeis)

The existence and the maximum duration of the exclusion ground must be linked to the establishment of the infringement, not to its commission.

In Hungarian legal practice, that means the moment the judgment becomes final. The date of commission is a calculation reference point, but the temporal scope of exclusion runs from the date the judgment becomes final.

Which register evidences what in the evaluation?

A significant part of the evaluation work is figuring out which register answers each letter of Kbt. 62. §. For economic operators established in Hungary, the KH Council Guidance provides a source table for exactly this.

Sources of evidence for the main letters of Kbt. 62. § (1) (economic operator established in Hungary)

Exclusion ground	What is evidenced	Source / register	Where to check
a) aa) to ah): specified criminal offences	No final conviction against the executive officer	Criminal record, and for Kbt. 62. § (1) a) aa) to ah) the Integrity Authority register	Extract from the Criminal Records Authority, Integrity Authority register of operators excluded from public procurement
b): public dues	No tax, customs, or social-security debt overdue by more than one year	Tax authority (NAV) register	NAV database of taxpayers without public dues, or an individual certificate
c): bankruptcy, liquidation, voluntary winding-up	No such procedure is pending	Company register	Company Information Service, e-cegjegyzek (the Hungarian electronic company register)
i): judgment against an executive officer	The executive officer has a clean criminal record	Criminal record	Certificate of good conduct, or for Kbt. 62. § (1) a) aa) to ah) the IH register
k) ka) to kc): beneficial-owner transparency	There is an identifiable beneficial owner and no offshore chain is involved	Beneficial-owner register under the Pmt. (Anti-Money-Laundering Act)	Beneficial-owner register, company records, own declaration
n): agreement restricting competition	No final GVH penalty-imposing decision on the ground of a cartel	GVH register	EKR-linked GVH data query, GVH website

The EKR queries the above registers directly at many points, so the evaluator only requests separate documentary evidence where the electronic query is unavailable. The Integrity Authority register that went live on 13 August 2026 gives an EKR-integrated, fast query specifically for the a) aa) to ah) layer. The EKR mechanics on the notice-submission side, which are covered in more detail in our article on public procurement notices, read the operator's status from the same system.

What is self-cleaning in public procurement?

Self-cleaning is the application for a finding of reliability under Kbt. 64. § (or Kbt. 188. § in a concession procurement procedure). Where an exclusion ground under Kbt. 62. § exists against an operator, this procedure is the way to request a return to the public procurement market.

The three cumulative conditions of the reliability finding

Three conditions, all of which must be satisfied together. The absence of any one of them results in rejection of the application.

1. 01

   Reparation

   Compensation paid, or a commitment to compensation, towards the injured party. The Authority expects concrete, documented compensation or a legally binding undertaking to pay compensation. If the amount of compensation cannot be quantified or the entitled party cannot be identified, the condition is not met.

2. 02

   Cooperation

   Active cooperation with the investigating authorities to clarify the facts affected by the infringement. Passive conduct on its own is not enough. Judgment 106.K.701.364/2023/16 of the Budapest Metropolitan Court spells out precisely the depth expected under this standard.

3. 03

   Prevention

   Technical, organisational, and personnel measures to prevent future infringements: internal controls, a whistle-blower mechanism, appointment of a compliance officer, employee training, and review of the role of the persons involved in the infringement. The Authority evaluates whether these are concrete, documented, and verifiable.

The course of the application and the administrative deadline

The application may be submitted by any economic operator falling under an exclusion ground, together with the evidence. The Kbt. imposes no applicant-side submission deadline.

When is it worth pursuing a self-cleaning application

It is worth pursuing where the exclusion ground appears to be final and a presence on the public procurement market is materially important to the business. Two practical considerations, however, warrant a second look before starting.

1. 01

   Where the temporal scope of the exclusion ground will soon expire

   Under Kbt. 62. § (1) a) that is five years, and for other points the period specified in the statute. During the Authority's months-long processing, the exclusion ground itself often lapses before a decision is issued.

2. 02

   Where the reparation condition cannot be met

   Of the three cumulative conditions, reparation is the toughest. Without payment of compensation or an undertaking to pay it, the Authority rejects the application, and cooperation and prevention alone will not carry it over.

Can the contracting authority override the self-cleaning decision?

It cannot take a substantively contrary decision. The final reliability-finding decision is an act of the Public Procurement Authority, which the contracting authority is, as a general rule, required to accept.

The standard the evaluation committee can actually apply is drawn from judgment 106.K.701.364/2023/16 of the Budapest Metropolitan Court. The Public Procurement Authority published the decision in its news section on 8 September 2023. The judgment shaped the standard of active cooperation under Kbt. 188. § (2) b) against the Authority's self-cleaning practice. Because the cooperation requirement in 188. § (2) and in Kbt. 64. § is textually parallel, the court's reasoning transfers by analogy to the public procurement procedure. At the time of this edit there is no public indication of a Kúria (Supreme Court) review decision.

The Hungarian standard stays on an EU-conform track. The Court of Justice of the European Union has tightened the duty of assessment in two decisions, requiring the Authority to conduct a substantive assessment of the evidence submitted and of the reparation, cooperation, and preventive measures that go beyond the infringement itself.

The doctrinal backdrop of the EU-conform standard

Vert Marine (C-472/19) requires the authority to carry out a substantive assessment when ruling on self-cleaning. RTS Infra (C-387/19) calls for the reliability finding to be assessed independently and for national procedural law to be aligned accordingly. The Ertesítő Plusz article "Exclusion and self-cleaning in the light of the most recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union" works through the doctrinal treatment of the two cases.

Is an exclusion ground threatening the procurement, or has self-cleaning come up?

In a specific situation the steps around exclusion grounds and a self-cleaning application are rarely clear-cut. Let us review the procedural situation together and tell you what to do.

Ask the expert

What happens if an exclusion ground arises during the procedure?

An exclusion ground can arise not only at the beginning of the evaluation. It may set in after the procedure has started, at the evaluation or the contract-signature stage. The December 2023 analysis in Wolters Kluwer's Public Procurement Letters, titled "An Exclusion Ground During the Public Procurement Procedure," addresses this situation.

The same logic applies on the subcontractor and capacity-providing entity side. When a subcontractor is brought in later, the Kbt. re-check is mandatory, including at the contract-signature stage. No standalone public deep analysis is available on this sub-area. If this situation arises in a specific tender of yours, Sugallat's tenderer advisory service works precisely at that intersection.

What is the Integrity Authority register of excluded operators?

On 13 August 2026 the register of economic operators finally convicted of the criminal offences in Kbt. 62. § (1) a) aa) to ah) went live. It is public, EKR-integrated, and directly queryable.

On 13 August 2026, the Integrity Authority launched the EKR-integrated register of economic operators finally convicted of the criminal offences in Kbt. 62. § (1) a) aa) to ah) (corruption, budget fraud, terrorism, participation in a criminal organisation, human trafficking, money laundering, tax fraud, and further offences falling under a)), as reported by Portfolio on 13 August 2026.

The legal basis of the system is Sections 28(1) and 30(1) of Act XXVII of 2022 on the audit of the use of European Union budget resources (Eufetv.). The corresponding change to the evidence rules under Kbt. 62. § a) was carried through by Government Decree 427/2024. (XII. 23.). The register can be accessed directly on the Integrity Authority register of operators excluded from public procurement page.

What the Integrity Authority register contains and what it does not

Contains	Does not contain
Economic operators finally convicted of the criminal offences in Kbt. 62. § (1) a) aa) to ah)	Exclusion grounds under the other letters of Kbt. 62. § (b to o)
A public, EKR-integrated query to identify the operator	Discretionary exclusion grounds under Kbt. 63. §
The final judgment against the executive officer, indirectly (its exclusionary effect on the company via the officer)	Exclusion grounds covered by NAV, GVH, or the company register (those stay on their existing sources)

How do you identify the beneficial owner?

The beneficial-owner check is the central element of sub-point k) kb) of Kbt. 62. § (1). It is a four-step algorithm: direct owner, indirect chain, management authority, and, since 1 January 2026, trust asset management as well. The Pmt. threshold of influence is 25 per cent.

1. 1

   Direct owners

   Who holds a direct influence above 25 per cent in the operator (shareholding or voting rights)? If it is a natural person, that person is the beneficial owner.

2. 2

   Indirect chain

   If it is a legal person, the chain must be traced upwards until a natural person's influence above 25 per cent can be shown. In foreign ownership chains, documentation often gets stuck at this step.

3. 3

   Management authority

   If at every level of the chain the shareholding stays below 25 per cent, identification by management authority steps in. The influence exercised in the capacity of executive officer becomes the basis for designating the beneficial owner.

4. 4

   Trust asset management (since 1 January 2026)

   The settlor, the trustee, and the beneficiaries must be identified separately. Documentation rests on an extract of the trust asset management contract.

A practice-oriented explanation is given in KözbeszGuru's article on determining the beneficial owner, which also extends to holding structures and multi-level structures. Two distinctions must be kept apart: for an economic operator "without a beneficial owner" (not identifiable under the Pmt.), the exclusion ground actually exists, whereas for a tenderer that has "failed to name the beneficial owner," the declaration can be remedied. Ecovis's post on the significance of the beneficial owner works through this distinction.

Holding structures tend to get stuck in two places. On the documentation dimension: in multi-level, foreign ownership chains the documentation of identification is missing, because the beneficial owner under the Pmt. ends where the influence above 25 per cent ceases. On the legislative-novelty dimension: from 1 January 2026 the check extends to trust asset management, which brings new document types (typically an extract of the contract between the settlor and the trustee) into the evaluation. Evaluation committees are still coming up to speed on this layer.

When does a GVH fine exclude an operator from public procurement?

Under Kbt. 62. § (1) n), a final penalty-imposing decision of the Hungarian Competition Authority for an agreement restricting competition (cartel) creates a standalone mandatory exclusion ground. The source of the check is the EKR-linked GVH register.

What is the difference between a mandatory and a discretionary exclusion ground?

+

When is the ESPD declaration sufficient, and when must itemised evidence be attached?

+

What are the three cumulative conditions of self-cleaning?

+

What does the Integrity Authority "register of excluded operators" contain?

+