Selected issues of European law on the acquisition and management of agricultural land

The subject matter of the article is the development of new trends in the standardisation of European Union bodies in the acquisition and management of agricultural land. Economic and climate change in progress 1 they force the search for new legal solutions to protect the agricultural nature of the land.

This is innovative, but farming conducted on agricultural properties is to become a determinant of the future Common Agricultural Policy after 2020 To this end, legal solutions are sought at both European and national level to preserve the agricultural character of the land.

The aim of the article is to assess the legal acts adopted by the European Union authorities on soft law 2 , which are intended to influence the shape of agricultural property trading, protect the profession of the farmer and, above all, preserve the agricultural nature of the land and thus contribute to climate protection.

The legal acts introduced affect the sphere of national regulations, which are a determinant for them. However, the disunity of the views of the European Commission and the European Parliament on the legal mechanisms used and the potential for impact on the agricultural property market is a noticeable problem.

At the same time, the proposed legal mechanisms interfere in property ownership quite significantly 3 . This is not a new phenomenon 4 , but in the current state of the law quite strongly exposing the overriding role of the public interest in the trading of agricultural properties 5 .

The balance between countering speculation and property rights is becoming a fairly difficult challenge for European and national law.

The main hypothesis of the article is to confirm that soft law acts affect legislation in the Member States of the European Union. The important impact of the documents of the European Parliament or the European Commission discussed in this article and their impact on national regulations in the field of agricultural property trading can already be observed today.

The problem of the acquisition and management of agricultural land has recently been a matter of interest to European Union bodies. It was created by the process of mass redemption and leasing of land causing an excessive concentration of land not known in previous decades to the Member States of the European Union.

This process increased after 2004 and has appeared in the new Member States of the European Union, such as Hungary, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland. In these countries, a significant amount of agricultural land on the public administration has been privatised as a result of the changes introduced.

This has led to speculative trends in the ground market, in particular in many new Member States. The reason for this was the acquisition of land (purchase or long-term lease) by economic operators, often outside the agricultural area.

It should be noted that the process of buying the earth and its concentration was known earlier in the countries “third the world’. The purchase of land came from capital from other rich countries to build a food and raw material base. This phenomenon is known in literature as "land-grabbing" 6 It unexpectedly appeared in the new Member States of the European Union from the area of Central and Eastern Europe.

The cross-border appropriation of land in non-European countries is carried out for food, feed and biofuels production for richer countries. The main investors currently include Malaysia, USA, United Kingdom, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, India, Hong Kong, China and Argentina 7 .

The cross-border problem of land appropriation has also raised concern for international organisations. World Food Safety Committee (CFS) on 12 May 2012 issued so-called "voluntary" guidelines on responsible management of legal titles for land, fisheries and forests.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) also issued In 2012 „voluntary' guidance to countries to ensure adequate management of land ownership, fisheries and forests rights in the context of national food security.

A problem concerning the ownership of agricultural land characteristic of countries "third The world” was also seen in parts of the European Union and raised concerns for the EU administration 8 . Land speculation has become a fairly profitable business for investment funds. They are not designed to maintain the agricultural nature of the land, but, above all, to achieve a quick profit that will allow for reinvestment. The investment in the land became one with the determinants of the modern economy.

The reconciliation of the free movement of capital with the protection of agricultural land and their agricultural character has become not only a major challenge for agricultural policy, but also for national and EU legislation. The question arose as to how without interfering in the free movement of capital, i.e.

one from the foundations of the European Union, introduce restrictions on property trading. This restriction would interfere with property rights which are not in principle subject to Community regulation 9 .

On 21 January 2015 The European Economic and Social Committee, which is the advisory body of the Council and the Commission of the European Union, has issued an opinion on "Mass buy-out of agricultural land – a wake-up call for Europe and a threat to family farming (own-initiative opinion)" 10 . This is one of the first soft law legislation covering the management of agricultural properties and the future of European agriculture.

The European Parliament, having regard to the above documentation and the petition addressed to it 11 , issued an extensive resolution on 27 April 2017 on the current concentration of agricultural land in the European Union: how to make it easier for farmers to access agricultural land 12 .

The resolution in a sense corresponded to some legal changes in Member States such as Poland and Hungary. Its legal mechanisms are intended to identify possible legal instruments to limit land speculation while preserving its agricultural character.

The mechanisms proposed in the resolution are also intended to improve the climate and preserve the degree of biodiversity in rural areas.

In Parliament's resolution, the problem of excessive concentration 13 land is linked to the problem of over-repurchase of land and taking control of its management by a small group of entrepreneurs, sometimes not related to manufacturing or economic activities in agriculture. The acquisition of this land is carried out for land speculation.

Parliament points out that the process of concentrating and distributing land, especially from the sphere of state ownership, is contrary to the European model of sustainable, multifunctional agriculture, an important element of which is a family farm. The reasons for this disposal process are multifaceted.

These include increased demand for food, feed, industrial inputs produced by agriculture, including biofuels, biogas, etc. Another factor raised in the resolution of the European Parliament is the Common Agricultural Policy, which promotes set-aside and land use change.

Urban factors also contribute to the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land. The lack of land for new construction forces them to reach for agricultural land, which almost irreparably lose their importance to agriculture.

A further factor concerns the purchase of agricultural land and long-term leases, which also favour speculation. These factors have increased in particular in the above mentioned new Member States adopted into the European Union.

In 2004, have led to the introduction of protective measures in these countries to limit the concentration of land and their mass redemption. The system of protection introduced during the acquisition of agricultural land was subject to review of compliance with the law and compliance with European Union law by the European Commission.

The European Commission's implementation of the legal review procedure concerned shortcomings with regard to the newly adopted Member States.

It should be mentioned here that the European Union does not have exclusive or shared competence relating to the regulation of property ownership, including agricultural properties. However, the exclusivity clause on ownership by Member States has been formulated Article 345 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 14 .

Member States are required to respect the principles laid down in the Treaties: the free movement of capital and the payment expressed under Article 63 TFEU. It should be stressed that the right to purchase, use or dispose of immovable property (agricultural land) falls within the scope of the principle of free movement of capital 15 .

second the principle of freedom of establishment expressed by Member States, inter alia, in the trade in immovable property, under Article 49 TFEU. The principles of Union law set out above have a clear effect on the functioning of national law on property ownership and trading, including agriculture.

They point to the need to balance the regulatory proportion of national law, which is required to take account of the regulation of the guiding principles of Union law.

The two principles set out above clearly indicate a prohibition on imposing any restrictions on nationals (legal persons or natural persons) of a Member State and the territory of another State in respect of self-employed activities in agriculture.

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality is an important and inherent element of Union law. This involves a ban on direct as well as indirect classified discrimination. Indirect discrimination should be understood as the application of national law, which leads to an unequal legal effect.

In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, a clear view has arisen which confirms by virtue of the appointed Article 345 TFEU Member States' competence to develop the principles of ownership. However, the legislation in place must comply with the requirements of European Union law 16 .

The Court of Justice also held that the derogation in national rules from the principle of free movement of capital must not infringe certain criteria.

They cannot be discriminatory and must serve the public interest and must respect the principle of proportionality and comply with fundamental rights as well as the principles of European Union law. This also applies to the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations 17 .

Failure by the legislation of the Member States to take these criteria into account will result in their being deemed contrary to European Union law.

The case law of the Court of Justice allows for the taking into account of public objectives for the introduction of restrictions on the marketing of agricultural land in property acquisition cases. However, these objectives must be consistent with the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy 18 . .

The assessment and rationale for the introduction of restrictions on the marketing of agricultural land from the point of view of those principles of European law and the case law of the Court of Justice has undoubtedly undergone a certain evolution 19 . It consisted in the gradual acceptance of the restrictions imposed on the marketing of agricultural property due to specific public policy objectives.

The case law of the Court of Justice has identified views which, in the Court's view, are consistent with the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy 20 .

The introduction of restrictions in national regulations is accepted when it concerns:

• • increase the area of agricultural holdings; at the same time, they are intended to be used for agricultural production, which in turn is intended to counter speculation on agricultural land;
• • protecting the rural population by maintaining the dispersion of land ownership;
• • maintaining traditional forms of agricultural land cultivation by protecting agricultural properties intended to maintain a permanent population of rural environments;
• • maintaining traditional agricultural activities in tourist regions conducive to the protection of the agricultural population;
• • the protection of the territory and the integrity of the State, including the protection of areas of military importance and the protection of those interests from exposure to serious threats.

This European Parliament resolution dated 27 April 2017 called on the European Commission and the Member States to monitor the process of over-possession of land through acquisition and long-term lease. The resolution calls for increased control of the distribution of land resources, including in particular from the public sphere, taking into account the social, economic and environmental objective, as well as the prevention of speculation and concentration of agricultural land.

The European Parliament has also requested that pending proceedings against Member States be suspended as a result of the introduction of excessive legal safeguard regulations in the acquisition and leasing of agricultural land pending the establishment of definitive criteria for the trading of real estate.

This was particularly the case for the newly adopted Member States, which, in the European Commission's view, failed to fulfil their Treaty obligations towards the other Member States.

In 2015 The European Commission has initiated proceedings against Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and Slovakia in view of the high level of protection systems in place for the acquisition of agricultural land.

In the Commission's view, the legal systems introduced violate the principle of free movement of capital, which results in discrimination against other EU countries.

These countries have not provided evidence that could remove the European Commission's doubts. On 26 May 2016 The Commission moved to second, the last stage of proceedings before the application is referred to the Court of Justice 21 .

It should be noted that In 2015 Poland was not covered by the above procedure by the European Commission and was not a participant in the Commission’s proceedings on the trading of agricultural properties which would be in breach of obligations to other Member States of the European Union.

Please indicate that Poland until the beginning 2019 was not formally accused of violating the principle of free movement of capital concerning the management of agricultural properties, also due to negotiated Treaty transitional periods 22 .

The end of transitional periods In 2016, and especially the coincident reception in Poland In 2016 legislation significantly interfering with the marketing of agricultural property 23 , caused the European Commission's interest in respecting the principle of free movement of capital in Poland.

The potential risk of Poland being credited to countries violating the principles of EU law was also highlighted in the literature of the subject 24 .

It could not be surprising, therefore, that the problem of regulations in the Polish legal system limiting the free circulation of agricultural properties has been the subject of informal consultation of the European Commission with representatives of the Polish government for some time.

On 12 March 2019 in the media, it has been announced that the European Commission has asked the Polish Government to explain during the use of the EU-Pilot system 10 Weeks and answers to questions concerning the establishment in national legislation of regulations which may conflict with the EU principle of free movement of capital (Article 63(1) TFEU) and may discriminate against other citizens of the European Union.

The information provided in the media shows that in this case the Polish government's argument was not convincing to the European Commission. After hearing the reply of the Polish Government on the above case, the Commission announced the initiation of a formal infringement procedure for the EU free movement of capital 25 .

In this context, the European Commission's response to the European Parliament resolution dated 27 April 2017, that appeared on the day 18 October 2017, entitled ‘Translation Communication on the acquisition of agricultural land and European Union law’ 26 , Poland is also directly affected.

The European Commission has responded to both Parliament's resolution and has set out guidelines for establishing rules of regulation in Member States on agricultural land trading, which should comply with existing European Union law.

The European Commission, responding to the recommendations, calls and proposals addressed in the comprehensive resolution of the European Parliament, has formulated guidelines on the management of agricultural land.

These guidelines take into account and build on existing secondary European law (regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, international agreements) 27 . second The interpretation of the law is based on the rich case law of the Court of Justice.

The European Commission, in its extensive speech, has addressed the solutions proposed by Parliament in terms of the principle of free movement of capital, the principles of acquired rights and the principle of proportionality. In particular, the Commission referred to the proposed mechanisms for regulating the marketing of agricultural land, which are used in parts of the European Union countries, subject to the Commission's examination procedure for the infringement by those countries of the fundamental principles of European Union law.

In particular, the introduction of legal instruments such as: administrative permit for sale and lease, application by the State of the right of pre-emption, obligation was assessed for the purpose of controlling the trading of real estate lessee agricultural property for agricultural activities, restrictions on legal persons on the possibility of acquiring agricultural property, determination of the size of area ceilings for the acquisition of immovable property, introduction of indexation of real estate prices, determination by the State of preferences for farmers in respect of the agricultural land offered from the public property stock.

In view of the requests made in Parliament's resolution, the Commission has divided the comments and opinions made on the need to treat agricultural land resources as an exceptional good. The Commission also referred to the signalled processes of land concentration and speculation, as well as to the regulation of national ground law overly regulating the ground market introduced by some Member States which were not in agreement with the European Union authorities. This runs counter to the application of the fundamental principles of European Union law, in particular the principle of free movement of capital and non-discrimination of citizens from other European Union countries. The European Commission, confirming the competence of the Member States of the European Union to regulate the land market, including agricultural land, has declared:

• • imposing on the purchaser of agricultural property the obligation of personal holding,
• • the introduction of an obligation to reside in the territory of the acquisition of the property during the acquisition of the agricultural property,
• • introducing a ban on the acquisition of agricultural property by legal persons,
• • the use of reciprocity as incompatible with European Union law.

Attention should also be paid to the new emphasis in the European Commission's position to allow Member States to apply certain regulatory mechanisms concerning the agricultural land market under national law. It may be carried out on the basis of existing European Union legislation and the case law of the Court of Justice. This applies in particular to the following legal arrangements:

• • making the next acquisition of agricultural property subject to administrative authorisation, provided that there is a reason for the lack of arbitrariness of the decision, which could undermine the principle of legal certainty 28 ,
• • granting priority to farmers when acquiring agricultural property, while complying with the principle of proportionality to the objective pursued. This should also take into account the non-discrimination of other operators 29 ,
• • the possibility to apply, in the course of trade, price controls to prevent, according to objective criteria, speculative prices to agricultural land,
• • The criterion of holding agricultural qualifications when acquiring agricultural property is also allowed,
• • is allowed as a reasonable application of area standards when trading agricultural property, as well as favouring local purchasers taking into account specific objectives and the principle of proportionality 30 .

The elements of possible legal instruments listed above are just an example of Parliament's resolution and, in some respects, of the Commission's communication. Some countries, such as Poland and Hungary, use some of the proposed solutions in their national regulations. The administrative control of agricultural property trading is not foreign to France, Spain or Germany either. It is quite limited for the time being.

The European Commission’s position in the Communication on the key problems with the development of legal rules on the marketing of agricultural properties affecting the formation of agricultural structures in the Member States of the European Union indicates new regulation of mutual relations and the relationship between national laws and European Union law. It is also clear that the European Union authorities, Parliament, and in particular the Commission have begun to analyse the problem of concentration of agricultural land and large-area agricultural land acquisition processes 31 .

The materialisation of these processes is undoubtedly a European Parliament resolution and a communication from the European Commission. Both Parliament's resolution and the Commission's communication constitute so-called soft law – soft law 32 . As indicated by the European judicature, soft law acts are included in non-named acts. The Court of Justice has indicated that these should be taken into account in the process of clarifying internal (national) law or supplementing binding provisions of Union law 33 .

The Commission Communication is also characterised by additional elements. It does not create binding normative patterns, but, by systematicising the importance of the existing Treaty rules, the Communication also presents the interpretation of the Court of Justice, which forms the basis for the interpretation of EU law.

Given the Commission's specific competences under Article 258 It may give a reasoned opinion on the failure by the Member States of the European Union to fulfil the Treaty obligations. The Commission may also call for the removal of infringements, after the Member States have provided appropriate explanations.

If a Member State does not comply with the opinion within the time limit set by the Commission, it may bring the matter before the Court of Justice 34 . This opens the way for the judicial opening of proceedings.

In view of the above competences of the Commission, the Communication under consideration clearly sends a signal to the Member States to comply with the rules on the marketing of agricultural properties in the field of national law. It is also relevant to the principles of Union law.

At the same time, account must be taken of the divergences in Parliament's resolution and the Commission's communication that can be applied to legal instruments interfering with the trading of agricultural property.

This causes not only interpretation problems, but also at this level indicates difficulties in finding legal mechanisms that would reconcile the free movement of capital and property rights. There is concern that finding such solutions in national law may not be feasible due to the complexity of the rules of European law.

European Parliament Under point 40 The resolution calls on the Commission, together with Member States and stakeholders, to publish a clear and comprehensive catalogue of criteria, including transactions on agricultural land carried out on capital markets, which will ensure a level playing field and explain beyond doubt what measures to regulate the land market are acceptable to Member States, taking into account the public interest and four the fundamental freedoms of the European Union in order to facilitate farmers' acquisition of land used in agriculture and forestry; calls on the Commission to consider the interruption of pending proceedings to verify compliance with EU law of the Member States' statutory regulations on the marketing of agricultural land pending publication of the above criteria." The lack of such a list of criteria – legal instruments means that the resolution and the communication remain exclusive legal mechanisms for the moment.

At the same time, it can be observed that individual EU countries are looking for legal mechanisms to protect the agricultural nature of the land. This involves the indirect impact of the legislation in question on national regulations. Neither the resolution nor the communication have a normative role. However, the themes taken up and the specific direction of the expected changes place these acts on a fairly important position of "soft" impact on the marketing of agricultural properties in Europe.

_______________________________

1 A. Unknown, Family farm against environmental protection in Polish and European law, (in:) P. Liwtiniuk (ed.), Legal mechanisms for supporting and protecting family farming in Poland and other European Union countries, Warsaw 2015, p. 141–151; P. Litviniuk, Rural Development Programme as a programming document and source of agricultural law, Warsaw 2018, reflections on agri-environment payments.

2 A. Jurcewicz, Soft law in the law of the European Communities, "Legislative Review" 1997, No 4, p. 31–44; J. Barcz, Treaty of Lisbon. Selected legal aspects of implementation activities, Warsaw 2012; idem, Principle of priority of Community law in the light of the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland 1997, „Public Law Quartet’ 2004, No 2. 3 A. Stelmachowski, Content and exercise of property rights, (in:) T. Dybowski (ed.), Private Law System. Tom 3. Indigenous Law, Warsaw 2007, p. 187–314

4 A. Jurcewicz, Property in the Community Law – outline, ‘Studio Iuritica Agraria’ 2005, t. V.

5 Czechowski, A. Unknown, Trends in the development of Polish agricultural law due to the acquisition of Polish membership in the European Union, „Studio Iuritica Agraria” 2009, t. VII, p. 30–45.

6 R. Pastuszko, Land grabbing. Fundamental legal issues, ‘Iuridica Lubinensia Study’ 2017, t. XXVI, p. 147–156.

7 Countries with cross-border investments include Indonesia, Ukraine, Russia, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Argentina, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Morocco, as follows: R. Pastuszko, Land grabbing..., p. 148 and n. Cf. also the wide international context of the above problem contained in monograph R. Pastuszko, Access to the agricultural land resource in the process of globalisation. Legal matters, Lublin 2019, p. 68–109.

8 K. Marciniuk, The concept of agricultural property as a subject of property marketing regulation, „Studio Iuridica Lubliniensia” 2017, t. XXVI, p. 94–114.

9 P. Liwtiniuk, About selected problems concerning the scope of exemptions from the new legal regime of agricultural property trading in Poland, „Studio Iuritica Lubliniensia” 2017, t. XXVI, p. 256–269.

10 Official Journal of the European Union C, No. 242 to 2015, p. 3. This opinion coincided with the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development's "Extent of Farmland Grabbing in the EU" study, p. 24 (PES 40,369).

11 Petition No Regulation (EU) 187/2015 on the protection and management of European agricultural land as common assets: call for civil society organisations to check a sustainable and fair EU land policy.

12 see: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2016/2141(INI) (access: 1 April 2020)

13 According to the Land Matrix database (www.landmatrix.org) from 2004 Foreign investors have acquired rights to use or control ok. 68,000 ha in Bulgaria, 8000 ha in Lithuania and 84,000 ha in Romania. This represents 1.3% the total area of arable land in Bulgaria, 2.3% in Lithuania, 0.4% Romania.

However, in Slovakia, Latvia, Hungary and Poland foreigners purchased or controlled 1% arable land surfaces. See also the European Parliament document. Internal Policy General Directive. The scope of the mass redemption of agricultural land in the UEC (Extent of Farmland Grabing in the EU, research with 2015, p.

19–20, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540369/IPOL_STU(2015)540369_EN.pdf (access: 1 April 2020).

14 Official Journal of the European Union C, No. 202 to 2016, p. 47 (consolidated version). A. Jurcewicz, the Treaty bases of EU agricultural law in the light of the case law. Selected issues, Warsaw 2012, p. 145 i n

15 This has also been confirmed in the case law of the Court of Justice. See, for example, TS rulings: case C-370/05, Festersen, point 21-23, case C-452/01, Ospelt, point 24. Cf. also A. Jurcewicz, P. Popardowski, Property in terms of Polish law and EU law, “Iuridica Agraria Study” 2011, t. IX, p. 130–153.

16 Judgment of the TS in the case C-302/97, The Secretary-General of the Republic of Österreich, point 38, and the case C-367/98, Commission v Portugal, point 48.

17 Judgment of the TS in the case C-17/03, VEMW, point 80.

18 The review of the case law and the positions of the doctrine of law in this respect includes the monograph K. Marciniuk, Legal instruments of intervention of public authorities in the marketing of agricultural properties as a means of shaping the agricultural system, Białystok 2019, p. 52–67

19 Lt. A. Jurcewicz, Property... p. 69–73. A. Jurcewicz, P. Popardowski, Property..., p. 130–153.

20 We would like to quote K. Marciniuk, Legal Instruments... p. 62–63, together with the extensive case law of the Court of Justice.

21 The signature of the proceedings is published in the monograph K. Marciniuk, Legal Instruments..., p. 58

22 However, the danger of this process occurring in the Polish legal system was signalled in the literature of the subject. Cf. P. Czechowski, Turnover of Land and the Free Movement of Capital, ‘Studio Iuritica Agraria’ 2017, t. XII, p. 39–48.

23 This applies in particular to changes made Act dated 11 April 2003 on the formation of the agricultural system (text one.

Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1655, as amended) on the way Act dated 14 April 2016 on halting the sale of the property of the Agricultural Property Resource of the Treasury and amending certain laws (Journal of Laws of 2016, item 585, as amended).

This bill raises many constitutional doubts about violations of the principles of correct legislation and violations of constitutional principles of property freedom and economic freedom.

On 16 July 2016 The Ombudsman made a request to the Constitutional Court for certain provisions as non-constitutional amended on 30 April 2016 Act on the formation of the agricultural system (K 36/16). Lt. K. Marciniuk, Legal Instruments..., p. 347.

24 Cf. P. Czechowski, A. Niewiadowski, Legal instruments for regulating the trading of agricultural properties in Poland against the background of regulations of European countries, „Studio Iuridica” 2018, t. XXII, p. 90

25 E. Świętochowska, contrary to European law?, “The Legal Gazette” with 12 March 2019, https://www.gazetaprawna.pl

26 Official Journal of the European Union C, No. 350 to 2017, p. 5.

27 7 P. Czechowski, Original and secondary sources of European Union law in the Polish legal order, (in:) A. Jaroszyński, M. Możdzyń-Marcinkowski (ed.), Basics of administrative law, Warsaw 2014, p. 63–72.

28 Under point 22 Resolutions ‘encourages all Member States to use such instruments to regulate the land market which are already successfully applied in some Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties, such as state permits for the sale and lease of land, the right of pre-emption, the obligation to maintain by lessee agricultural activities, restrictions on the right of legal persons to acquire, limits on the number of hectares of land that can be purchased, preferences for farmers, land collection, price indexation on the basis of income from agricultural activities, etc.’

29 For example Under point 12 resolutions.

Parliament "calls on Member States to give priority to small and medium-sized local producers, new entrants and young farmers in order to achieve the CAP's objectives of acquiring and leasing agricultural land, ensuring equal access for women and men, since having as much land as possible is in the interests of sustainable and stable development of their farms, especially at a time when non-farmers are increasingly interested in buying agricultural parcels, very often for purely speculative purposes; encourages Member States to promote small family farms and sustainable production methods".

The Commission communication on agricultural qualifications states that "It cannot therefore be concluded that professional qualifications are required for the effective operation of the agricultural sector.

In this context, the requirement to have specific qualifications for the purchase of land requires specific justification in national legislation; in the absence of such justification it would appear that the requirement is an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the free movement of capital.

In order to draw another conclusion, Member States would have to demonstrate why certain qualifications are required to purchase land, whereas in principle agricultural activities are allowed without any formal confirmation of competence.

These proposals do not undermine the fact that successful and sustainable agriculture requires adequate vocational training"

30 See the Communication and K. Marciniuk, Legal Instruments..., p. 66–67.

31 Lt. R. Pastuszko, Access to the Resource... p. 213–244.

32 The analysis of soft law includes, among others, monograph: P. Litwiniuk, Development Program..., p. 151–154

33 We would like to say P. Litvinuk, Development Programme...

34 Lt. K. Marciniuk, Legal Instruments..., p. 68.

Bibliography:

Barcz J., Treaty of Lisbon. Selected legal aspects of implementation activities, Warsaw 2012

Barcz J., Principle of priority of Community law in the light of the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of 1997, „Public Law Quartet’ 2004, No 2

Czech Republic P., Earth turnover and free movement of capital, ‘Studio Iuridica Agraria’ 2017, t. XII

Czechowski P., The original and secondary sources of European Union law in the Polish legal order, (in:) A. Jaroszyński, M. Możdzyń-Marcinkowski (ed.), Basics of administrative law, Warsaw 2014

Czechowski P., Unknown A., Legal instruments for regulating trade in agricultural properties in Poland against the background of regulations of European countries, „Studio Iuridica” 2018, t. XXII

Czechowski P., Unknown A., Trends in the development of Polish agricultural law in connection with the acquisition of Poland's membership in the European Union, „Studio Iuridica Agraria” 2009, t. VII

Jurcewicz A., Soft law in the law of the European Communities, "Legislative Review" 1997, No 4

Jurcewicz A., Treaty bases of EU agricultural law in the light of case law. Selected issues, Warsaw 2012

Jurcewicz A., Property in the Community Law – outline, "Iuritica Agraria Study" 2005, t. V

Jurcewicz A., Papardowski P., Property in terms of Polish law and EU law, „Studio Iuritica Agraria” 2011, t. IX Litviniak P., Rural Development Programme as a programming document and source of agricultural law, Warsaw 2018

Liwtiniuk P., About selected problems concerning the scope of exemptions from the new legal regime of agricultural property trading in Poland, „Studio Iuritica Lubliniensia” 2017, t. XXVI

Marciniuk K., The concept of agricultural property as a subject of property trading regulation, “Studio Iuritica Lubliniensia” 2017, t. XXVI

Marciniuk K., Legal instruments of interference of public authorities in the marketing of agricultural properties as a means of shaping the agricultural system, Białystok 2019

Unknown A., Family farm against environmental protection in Polish and European law, (in:) P. Liwtiniuk (ed.), Legal mechanisms for supporting and protecting family farming in Poland and other European Union countries, Warsaw 2015

Pastuszko R., Access to agricultural land resources in the process of globalisation. Legal matters, Lublin 2019

Pastuszko R., Land grabbing. Fundamental legal issues, ‘Iuridica Lubinensia Study’ 2017, t. XXVI

Stelmachowski A., Content and exercise of property rights, (in:) T. Dybowski (ed.), Private Law System. Tom 3. Indigenous Law, Warsaw 2007.

Article courtesy of Warsaw University Publishing House

Source: Iuritica Studies 86

ISSN 0137-4346; e-ISSN 2544-3135 Creative Commons: Recognition of Authorship CC BY) 3.0 Poland

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/pl/

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31338/2544-3135.si.2020-86.3