MOHU handling fee: what really happened in the Hadházy–MOHU dispute?

The revision of the MOHU handling fee turned into a political row within hours. Former MP Ákos Hadházy says the company quietly and drastically cut what smaller shops earn on returned bottles; MOHU says it now pays retailers several billion forints more per year. Both are talking about the same public notice, yet they reach opposite conclusions. We read both the old and the new notice, ran the numbers, and found that both claims can be true — just not about the same shop. The document also contains two rules neither side mentioned.

What the argument is actually about

One definition first, because most of the confusion starts here.

The handling fee is not the 50 forints a customer gets back for a bottle. It is a separate money flow: MOHU pays it to shops for operating the reverse vending machine or the manual counter — emptying the unit, handling faults, keeping the area clean, storing and handing over the collected packaging. The obligation to pay it comes from Section 14(2) of Government Decree 450/2023, and its source is not the consumer but the mandatory deposit fee paid in by producers.

From the shopper’s point of view nothing has changed: 50 forints is still 50 forints. The dispute is about who gets paid how much for running the system — and what that payment encourages. (All amounts below are net of VAT, as in the notices themselves.)

What changed on 1 September 2026

The notice in force from 1 September 2025 tied the per-unit rate to sales floor area and consisted of a single element:

• machine-operated site, over 400 m²: HUF 3.5 per container
• machine-operated site, 200–400 m²: HUF 7.5 per container
• machine-operated site, 200 m² or below: HUF 11.5 per container
• manual return point: HUF 11.5 per container

The new notice splits this in two and removes shop size from the calculation entirely for machine-operated sites. The monthly handling fee is now the sum of a monthly lump sum and a per-unit component:

• 1–49,999 containers/month: HUF 100,000 lump sum + HUF 3.5 per container
• 50,000–74,999 containers/month: HUF 200,000 lump sum + HUF 3.5 per container
• above 75,000 containers/month: HUF 300,000 lump sum + HUF 3.5 per container

So the per-unit rate is now a uniform HUF 3.5 at every machine-operated shop, and the basis for differentiation is no longer floor area but returned volume. Manual return points are governed by a separate clause — more on that below, because it holds the harshest figure in the whole story.

It is also fair to note that the notice is public and freely available in the Repont document library. “Quietly” describes the absence of communication around the change, not any attempt to hide it.

Three footnotes neither side talked about

The footnotes matter more than the table. There are three, and all three are substantive.

The band is set by a 12-month average, not by the month itself. Under the notice, MOHU determines the monthly returned volume as the arithmetic mean of the volumes recorded at the site in the current month and the preceding 11 months. This detail was missing from press coverage, yet it decides which band a shop falls into. A strong summer season alone will not move a shop up a band, and a weak month will not immediately drop it — band changes lag in both directions. A newly opened return point with a still-low average therefore stays in the bottom band even once its actual traffic has long outgrown it.

Zero returns means zero payment. If not a single mandatory-deposit container is returned at the site in a given month, neither the lump sum nor the per-unit fee is payable. That is a defensible rule in itself: it rules out fixed income for a machine that is not working.

The lump sum is per site, not per machine. The notice states explicitly that where several machines operate at one site, the lump sum is still payable only once. Hadházy quoted this detail accurately, and it is the best-supported point in the dispute.

What it means in forints for a smaller shop

This is where the two sides talk past each other. The two notices allow a simple model. The examples below compare the monthly handling fee under the old and new schemes for a machine-operated shop under 200 m², previously in the HUF 11.5 band (own calculation, using published rates only and assuming steady traffic):

• 5,000 containers/month: HUF 57,500 before, HUF 117,500 now — more than double
• 12,500 containers/month: HUF 143,750 either way — this is the exact break-even point
• 30,000 containers/month: HUF 345,000 before, HUF 205,000 now — a drop of roughly 40%
• 49,000 containers/month: HUF 563,500 before, HUF 271,500 now — close to a halving

The lesson is surprisingly sharp: the tipping point sits at around 12,000–13,000 containers a month. Genuinely low-volume shops gain from the lump sum, because their income per container rises. But a shop handling heavy return traffic in a small space — the busy corner store, the estate supermarket, the petrol station shop — really can see its income halve.

Hadházy’s claim is therefore not baseless, it simply does not hold for every small shop. MOHU’s claim can also stand at system level, since the lump sum is a line item that did not exist at all for thousands of stores before.

Winners and losers under the new MOHU handling fee scheme

Follow the logic through and the picture is clear.

Better off: the large store above 400 m². Its per-unit rate did not change — it has been HUF 3.5 since September 2025 — and it now receives the monthly lump sum on top. That is a straight gain.

Better off: the very low-volume machine-operated shop turning over a few thousand containers a month. The lump sum is worth more to it than what it loses on the per-unit cut.

Worse off: the small- or mid-sized shop with heavy return traffic. For them, the drop from HUF 11.5 or 7.5 to HUF 3.5 cannot be offset by the flat amount.

Worst off: the manual return point.

In other words, the scheme used to lean towards smaller shops, acknowledging that returns cost them more per container. It now leans towards volume. Return a lot of containers and you earn more; return a lot in a small space and you earn less.

Manual return points barely came up at all

This is the least discussed and possibly heaviest item in the dispute. Under the notice, the method for manual return points does not change: it remains a single per-unit component, with no lump sum at all. The rate, however, falls from HUF 11.5 to HUF 8 per container from 1 October 2026.

That is roughly a 30% loss of income, with no compensating element, regardless of size or volume, at every single manual return point. There is no break-even point and no traffic level at which the change turns into a gain.

This matters because manual return typically operates where there is no room or not enough traffic for a machine: in small settlements, villages, the smallest general stores. Precisely the places where the presence or absence of a return option decides whether collecting containers is worth the effort at all. And since this clause only takes effect on 1 October, its impact is not yet visible.

Who is right about the 50 forints?

Hadházy argues that unredeemed deposits amount to extra profit for MOHU. MOHU counters that the money is not profit but covers part of the cost of running the return system.

Legally, MOHU is right that the deposit operates as a ring-fenced fund and that unclaimed amounts must be spent on running the system. The economic question does not disappear, though. If part of an operator’s income comes from what consumers do not claim back, then a higher return rate means both higher costs and lower income for that operator. This does not prove intent; it describes a structural tension in which the environmental goal and operating economics do not point the same way.

That tension cannot be settled with arguments, only with data. One thing would resolve it: an itemised, audited and public account of the deposit fund — how much came in from unredeemed containers, and exactly what it was spent on. Until that exists, both sides remain consistent within their own logic.

Why you still queue at a single machine

This is the most practical part of the dispute for shoppers — and where Hadházy’s reasoning is strongest, because it is written into the notice verbatim.

If the lump sum is paid per site, a second or third machine is pure cost for the retailer: more floor space, more emptying, more staff hours, more maintenance, with no increase in the fixed income element. The per-unit rate does not help either, since the same number of containers earns the same money however many machines they arrive through. The scheme simply does not reward adding capacity exactly where queues are longest.

The expert quoted by Hadházy takes the consequences further: unmotivated operators, shorter opening hours, a dirtier return corner, reluctant service — and finally the shopper who drops the bottle in the bin instead. This is a forecast, not a measured fact. But the incentives do point that way, which is precisely why it is worth watching.

Who actually sets this fee?

The expert opinion included one claim worth refining: that MOHU changes the rates unilaterally, relying on its own general terms and conditions.

Based on the notice, that is half true. The obligation to pay follows from legislation — Government Decree 450/2023 — and MOHU cannot set that aside. The amount, however, really is determined by MOHU in a notice whose defined terms come from its own manual and RVM general terms, and which cites no regulatory approval of any kind. The distinction is the substance: that a fee must be paid is law; how much it is, is decided by the concession holder after consulting its contracted partners.

That structure explains how MOHU’s “the result of months of consultation” and Hadházy’s “unilaterally” can both be accurate: the consultation took place with trade associations, but the decision arrived as a notice.

What to watch over the coming months

A few measurable signals will show whose reading holds up:

• What happens to manual return points after 1 October? The most sensitive point, and the least tracked.
• Does the number of return points change? Small-town shops leaving the system would be a pricing signal.
• Do machine numbers grow in busy stores? If not, that supports the per-site lump-sum critique.
• Where does the return rate go next? MOHU cites a level near 90%; a plateau or decline would be telling.
• Do settlement times improve? Late payment is a liquidity issue for small shops, not an inconvenience.
• Will the deposit fund get an itemised public account?

From the shopper’s side

One thing in this story is not disputed: returning your containers is still worth doing, and still worth 50 forints each. The ramp-up of the system — millions of containers a day — has genuinely been fast by European standards, and the public largely delivered it.

The fee overhaul is a useful reminder that a circular system stands or falls on the fine-tuning of incentives, not on good intentions. If running the system is not in the interest of the people doing the daily work, it will eventually show in the state of the return corner, the length of the queue and the opening hours. From there the shopper decides — and no amount of good regulation replaces the few minutes they will not spend after a bad experience.

---

Frequently asked questions about the MOHU handling fee change

What is the MOHU handling fee?

The handling fee is the amount MOHU pays shops for operating the return service. It funds emptying the machine, dealing with faults, keeping the return area clean and storing the collected packaging. Payment is required by Government Decree 450/2023, and its source is the mandatory deposit fee paid in by producers, so it is separate from the 50 forints shoppers receive.

How much is the handling fee from 1 September 2026?

At machine-operated return points, shops receive a flat HUF 3.5 for every container, regardless of shop type or size. On top of that comes a banded monthly lump sum: HUF 100,000 below 50,000 containers, HUF 200,000 between 50,000 and 75,000, and HUF 300,000 above 75,000. Previously the per-unit rate depended on floor area: HUF 11.5, 7.5 or 3.5.

How much do manual return points receive?

For manual return points the method does not change, there is still no monthly lump sum, and the per-unit rate falls from HUF 11.5 to HUF 8 from 1 October 2026. That is roughly a 30% loss of income with no compensating element, regardless of volume. Manual return operates where there is no room or not enough traffic for a machine.

Does the change reduce the 50-forint deposit for shoppers?

No, shoppers still receive 50 forints for every container returned. The revision affects only what retailers are paid, meaning how much MOHU contributes to running the return service. The level of the deposit itself is set in legislation, and the notice did not touch it in any form.

Why can a busy small shop end up worse off?

Because its per-unit rate fell furthest, from HUF 11.5 to HUF 3.5, and the monthly lump sum only compensates up to a limited volume. Calculated from the rates in the notices, the break-even point sits at around 12,000 to 13,000 containers a month. Below that a shop gains; above it, handling income can halve.

Why are there not more return machines in large stores?

Because the monthly lump sum is paid per operating site, not per machine — the notice states this explicitly. A second or third unit is therefore pure cost: floor space, emptying, staff hours and maintenance, while the fixed income element stays the same. The per-unit rate offers no incentive either, since the same containers pay the same regardless.

---

Sources:

Based on MOHU’s two official notices on the level of the handling fee (the one in force from 1 September 2025, and the one applying from 1 September 2026 and, for manual return, from 1 October 2026), together with the public Facebook posts of both parties. The forint examples are the author’s own models built from the published rates, assume steady traffic, and exclude any further elements of individual contracts. All amounts are net of VAT.