Criteria for Innovation Hub support

Innovation Hub would not make sense if anyone could get its support. The criteria for obtaining support should be set taking into account the entity, as well as the nature of the project seeking to get the Innovation Hub support. Furthermore, Innovation Hub activities are marked by the principle of proportionality. The project seeking the Innovation Hub support must be innovative, beneficial to investors and in some phase of development. This excludes projects seeking legal opinion (for this, they can send a request for legal opinion to Hanfa, pursuant to Article 15(9) of the Hanfa Act), as well as projects that have not thoroughly examined their business model. If entities are not certain whether the above-mentioned criteria are met, they should send their preliminary inquiries to

Persons who submit Innovation Hub support requests and who fulfil the formal conditions as stated in the application form will be contacted by Hanfa within no more than a week.

Before requesting the Innovation Hub support, the entities should be able to answer at least the following questions:

    1. Is the innovation genuine?
    2. Does the project offer benefit to consumers?
    3. Have they invested enough time to understand their position within the regulatory framework?
    4. Does the project have a genuine need for support through the Innovation Hub or can support be offered via regular Hanfa procedures?

Positive indicators:

  1. The business innovation is within Hanfa’s competence:
    • initial analysis indicates that the approach or a solution are innovative
    • there are no comparable projects on the market or they are in a development phase
    • independent experts believe that the innovation is genuine
  2. Business venture, product or service does not easily fit the existing regulatory framework.
  3. The innovation is likely to lead to a better deal for consumers (better quality of service; faster, safer or cheaper provision of services).

Negative indicators:

  1. It is reasonable to expect that the innovation will have a detrimental impact on the financial system, consumers or the market.
  2. The purpose of the innovation is to circumvent regulatory or fiscal obligations.
  3. The entity has made little or no effort to understand the position of the innovation within the existing regulatory framework.
  4. The added value of the Innovation Hub support is unclear; other than regular relations with the sector or during licensing and registration procedures.
  5. The entity has significant resources to assess regulatory compliance, but they have not been engaged to solve the issue for which it seeks Innovation Hub support.
  6. The innovation easily fits the existing regulatory framework, therefore the support is not necessary.
  7. There is a series of comparable projects on the market.