Lietuviškai
Case No. 14/03
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA PROVISIONAL LAW ON THE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL
LAND (WORDING OF 15 JULY 2004) WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND ON THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS
OF THE SEIMAS, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER ARTICLE 4 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA PROVISIONAL LAW
ON THE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND (WORDING OF 28 JANUARY
2003) IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA
30 March 2006
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representatives of a group of Members of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, who were
Gintaras Steponavičius and Raimondas Šukys, both of whom are
members of the Seimas,
the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Liucija Schulte-Ebbert,
a senior advisor of the Legal Department of the Office of the
Seimas,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its
public hearing on 29 March 2006 heard case No. 14/03 subsequent
to the petition of a group of Members of the Seimas, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Article 4 of the
Republic of Lithuania Provisional Law on the Acquisition of
Agricultural Land (wording of 28 January 2003) is not in
conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania "as
a whole" as well as Articles 18, 23, 29, 32, 46 and 48 of the
Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. A group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner,
applied to the Constitutional Court requesting to investigate
whether Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Republic of Lithuania
Provisional Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land
(wording of 28 January 2003; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
2003, No. 15-600; hereinafter also referred to as the Law
(wording of 28 January 2003)) were not in conflict with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania "as a whole" as well
as Articles 18, 23, 29, 32, 46 and 48 of the Constitution.
2. By the Constitutional Court decision of 14 March 2006,
which was adopted in this constitutional justice case, it was
decided to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings in the case
subsequent to the petition requesting to investigate whether
Articles 3 and 8 of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) were
not in conflict with Articles 18, 23, 29, 32, 46 and 48 of the
Constitution; to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings in
the part of the case requesting to investigate whether Articles
5 and 6 of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) were not in
conflict with Articles 18, 23, 29, 32, 46 and 48 of the
Constitution and to this extent to return the petition to the
group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner; to continue the
preparation the case for the Constitutional Court hearing,
subsequent to the petition requesting to investigate whether
Article 4 of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) is not in
conflict with Articles 18, 23, 29, 32, 46 and 48 of the
Constitution.
II
The petitioner grounds his doubts as regards the
compliance of Article 4 of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003)
with the Constitution on the fact that the disputed article
establishes, without any objective reasons, different maximum
sizes of agricultural land plots which are permitted to be
acquired by natural persons, agricultural companies and legal
persons. According to the petitioner, such legal regulation
discriminates against individual persons, thus, the provision
of Article 29 of the Constitution that all persons shall be
equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions
and officials is violated; different competition conditions are
created to different persons, thus the provisions of Article 46
of the Constitution which consolidate freedom of fair
competition and the opportunities of a human being to choose a
desirable form of business are violated, thus Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 of the Constitution is violated.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were
received from the representative of the Seimas, the party
concerned, who was Liucija Schulte-Ebbert, wherein it is inter
alia asserted that Article 4 of the Law (wording of 28 January
2003) is not in conflict with the Constitution. The position of
the representative of the party concerned is grounded on the
following arguments.
The adoption of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) was
determined by the Law on Amending Article 47 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending the Constitutional Law on the
Entities, Procedure, Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of
the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania. From the economic, social and ethno-cultural
standpoint, agriculture and rural development are state
priority areas. The purposes established in Article 1 of the
Law (wording of 28 January 2003) reflected the public interest
which was sought to be attained by the requirements established
in this law. One sought to ensure the use of agricultural land
according to its purpose, the source of subsistence of the
people who worked in agriculture and solution of rural social
problems, to retain equal opportunities of residents of
Lithuania and foreigners to acquire land, and to prevent land
speculation (so that it is not bought up for the purpose of
re-selling). By the establishment of different maximum sizes of
agricultural land plots allowed to be acquired by natural
persons, agricultural companies and other legal persons it was
attempted to form, while taking account of different scale of
the activities of legal and natural persons, corresponding
agricultural structures.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were
received from G. Kniukšta, Chairman of the Committee on Rural
Affairs of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, P.
Koverovas, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the
Republic of Lithuania, R. Stanikūnas, Chairman of the
Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania, V. Vadapalas,
Director General of the European Law Department under the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania, K. Maksvytis, Director
General of the National Land Service under the Ministry of
Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania, P. Aleknavičius,
advisor to the Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of
Lithuania, D. Stanikūnas, Director of the Lithuanian Institute
for Agrarian Economics, E. Grakauskas, a lecturer of the
Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law of the
Faculty of Law of Vilnius University, Assoc. Prof. E.
Monkevičius who works at the Labour Law and Social Security
Department of the Law University of Lithuania, J. Vilkevičiūtė,
a teacher of the Department of Administration and Rural
Development of the Faculty of Economics and Management of the
Lithuanian University of Agriculture, and U. Trumpa, President
of the Free Market Institute.
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, also some information was
received from J. Kraujelis, Minister of Agriculture of the
Republic of Lithuania and Acting Prof. A. Maziliauskas who
works at the Faculty of Water and Land Management of the
Lithuanian University of Agriculture.
V
1. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the
representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, who were G.
Steponavičius and R. Šukys, virtually reiterated the arguments
set forth in the petition of the petitioner.
The representative of the petitioner R. Šukys, a Member of
the Seimas, also presented additional arguments on the
compliance of Article 4 of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003)
with the Constitution, while interpreting it in the context of
the entire regulation of the Law, as well as arguments on the
conflict of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Provisional
Law on Acquisition of Agricultural Land (wording of 15 July
2004) with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision "the law
shall <...> protect freedom of fair competition" of Paragraph 4
of Article 46 and the provision "each human being may freely
choose a <...> business" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the
Constitution.
3. At the Constitutional Court hearing, L. Schulte-Ebbert
virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in her written
explanations.
4. At the Constitutional Court hearing, a
specialist-Assoc. Prof. P. Aleknavičius, who works at Land
Management Department of the Faculty of Water and Land
Management of the Lithuanian University of Agriculture-took
floor.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 28 January 2003, the Seimas adopted the Provisional
Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land which (save certain
exceptions) came into force on 24 February 2003, i.e. on the
day of the entry into force of the 23 January 2003 Law on
Amending Article 47 of the Constitution.
On 20 May 2003, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Article 1 of the
Provisional Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land.
2. The petitioner requests to investigate whether Article
4 of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) is not in conflict
with the Constitution "as a whole" as well as Articles 18, 23,
29, 32, 46 and 48 of the Constitution.
3. By the Constitutional Court decision of 14 March 2006,
which was adopted in this constitutional justice case, it was
held that the petition requesting to investigate the compliance
of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution "as a
whole" is not clear and concrete enough, that the petition of
the petitioner to investigate the compliance of inter alia
Article 4 of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) with the
Constitution "as a whole" does not meet the requirements of
Items 8 and 9 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court and has no independent content, abstracted
from the petition requesting to investigate whether Article 4
of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) is not in conflict with
Articles 18, 23, 29, 32, 46 and 48 of the Constitution.
4. It is clear form the arguments of the petitioner that
he faced doubts as to the compliance of not entire Article 4 of
the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) with all the specified
articles of the Constitution, but only as to whether Paragraph
1 of Article 4 of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) to the
extent that it established different maximum sizes of
agricultural land plots which are permitted to be acquired by
natural persons, agricultural companies and legal persons was
not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision
"the law shall <...> protect freedom of fair competition" of
Paragraph 4 of Article 46 and the provision "each human being
may freely choose a <...> business" of Paragraph 1 of Article
48 of the Constitution.
5. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law (wording of
28 January 2003), natural and legal persons might, under this
law, acquire land inasmuch that the total area of agricultural
land owned by one person should not exceed: 300 ha for a
natural person who has registered a farmer's farm and has a
qualification certificate testifying to his preparedness to
engage in farming, except for the cases when the agricultural
holding owned by two spouses exceeded the said area as a result
of registration of their marriage or when the land was acquired
before the entry into force of this Law (Item 1); 2000 ha for
an agricultural company (Item 2); 1000 ha for a co-operative
(co-operative society) or any other legal person who engages in
agricultural activities (Item 3).
6. On 15 July 2004, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending the Provisional Law on the
Acquisition of Agricultural Land (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, No. 124-4490) by Article 1 whereof it amended the
Provisional Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land
(wording of 28 January 2003 with subsequent amendment and
supplement) and set it forth in a new wording. The law of this
wording (hereinafter also referred to as the Law (wording of 15
July 2004)) came into force on 7 August 2004.
7. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law (wording of
15 July 2004), persons may acquire, under the right of
ownership, land inasmuch that the total area of agricultural
land owned by one person, acquired from the state or other
persons, should not exceed: 300 ha for a natural person (Item
1); 2000 ha for a legal person (Item 2). Item 1 of this
paragraph also provides that a person, who has acquired an
agricultural land plot bigger than 300 ha, cannot, under this
law, acquire agricultural land.
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law (wording of 15 July
2004) has not been either amended or supplemented.
8. If one compares the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law (wording of 15 July 2004)
with that established in Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law
(wording of 28 January 2003), it is clear that the legal
regulation was amended inter alia in the aspect that the
maximum size of the agricultural land area allowed to be
acquired for legal persons of all forms was made equal-now it
is established as 2000 ha.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that by the Constitutional
Court decision of 14 March 2006, which was adopted in this
constitutional justice case, it was held that the general
provision that different maximum areas of agricultural land are
allowed to be acquired by different subjects, on the compliance
of which with the Constitution the petitioner had doubts,
remained consolidated in the Law (wording of 15 July 2004).
9. Under Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article
69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the annulment of the
disputed legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to
dismiss the instituted legal proceedings. In its acts the
Constitutional Court has held more than once that in cases
where the Constitutional Court is applied by courts, which in
the course of administration of justice has doubts as to the
compliance of a legal acts of lower power with legal acts of
higher power, inter alia (and, first of all) with the
Constitution, the Constitutional Court, under the Law on the
Constitutional Court, does not enjoy powers to dismiss the
instituted legal proceedings but it has a duty to consider the
request of the court regardless of whether or not the disputed
legal act (part thereof) is in force; the Constitutional Court
may, by taking account of the circumstances of the
constitutional justice case at issue, by invoking the ground
provided for in Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of
Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, dismiss the
instituted legal proceedings in cases when it was applied not
by a court, but another subject specified in Article 106 of the
Constitution. The same can be said about the situations where
the disputed legal act (part thereof) was not annulled, but the
legal regulation established therein was changed.
10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the part of
the case concerning the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 4
of the Law (wording of 28 January 2003) to the extent that it
established different maximum sizes of agricultural land plots
which are permitted to be acquired by natural persons,
agricultural companies and legal persons with Paragraph 1 of
Article 29, the provision "the law shall <...> protect freedom
of fair competition" of Paragraph 4 of Article 46 and the
provision "each human being may freely choose a <...> business"
of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution is to be
dismissed.
In the constitutional justice case at issue, the
Constitutional Court will investigate as to whether Paragraph 1
of Article 4 of the Law (wording of 15 July 2004) is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision "the law
shall <...> protect freedom of fair competition" of Paragraph 4
of Article 46 and the provision "each human being may freely
choose a <...> business" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the
Constitution.
II
On the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law
(wording of 15 July 2004) with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the
provision "the law shall <...> protect freedom of fair
competition" of Paragraph 4 of Article 46 and the provision
"each human being may freely choose a <...> business" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.
1. Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law (wording of 15 July
2004) establishes the maximum sizes of agricultural land plots
which are permitted to be acquired (to natural persons-300 ha,
and legal persons-2000 ha) and also consolidates the provision
that the prohibition for a natural person to acquire, by right
of ownership, agricultural land from the state or other persons
the total area of which is not bigger than 300 ha, is applied
to all natural persons (including those who acquire land under
this law and those who acquired such land prior to the entry
into force of this law-under this law, they already cannot
acquire such land).
2. Land is an important part of the ecosystem, it
determines the existence and change of other natural resources
(inter alia water bodies, plants and wildlife). Land is a
special natural resource in the aspect that it cannot be
replaced by something else, nor newly created, nor increased
otherwise. Thus, land is a limited resource.
The proper use of land as a limited resource is a
condition of the survival of the human being and society as
well as the basis of the welfare of the Nation; the ensuring of
rational use of land as a natural resource is a public interest
to guarantee which is a constitutional obligation of the state
(Constitutional Court rulings of 13 May 2005 and 14 March
2006). The duty of the state is to ensure that land be used
rationally and that it be protected arises from inter alia the
provisions of Article 54 of the Constitution whereby the state
shall take care of the protection of the natural environment,
wildlife and plants, individual objects of nature and areas of
particular value and shall supervise a sustainable use of
natural resources, their restoration and increase (Paragraph 1)
and that the destruction of land and the underground, the
pollution of water and air, radioactive impact on the
environment as well as depletion of wildlife and plants shall
be prohibited by law (Paragraph 2), as well as from the
constitutional imperative of social harmony and other
provisions of the Constitution. It needs to be noted that
rational use of land is inseparable from its protection, inter
alia from preservation of rich soil and the landscape,
protection of land from contamination, improper use and other
negative factors, as well as it is inseparable from ensuring of
freedom of agricultural business.
Land is a special object of ownership (Constitutional
Court rulings of 13 May 2005 and 14 March 2006). The possession
of land lots by right of ownership may be one of essential
conditions to start and develop business and one of necessary
pre-conditions for engaging in economic activities. When
legally regulating the relations linked with use of land for
business and economic activities, one must pay heed to the
specificity of the nature of land as a natural resource and of
land as real property.
An opportunity and necessity arise from the Constitution
to legally regulate the relations linked with acquisition,
possession and transfer of land as of a special object (and as
one of the conditions of business-one of the preconditions for
engaging in business activity) so that no preconditions are
created to inflict harm upon land as a special value defended
and protected by the Constitution, nor to violate other
constitutional values.
3. The aforesaid opportunity and necessity that arise from
the Constitution imply inter alia that the legal regulation of
these relations cannot not have certain peculiarities, if
compared with the legal regulation of other property relations.
The Constitutional Court has held that the bases of
differentiated legal regulation related with inter alia
ownership of land (as well as of other objects of natural
environment) arise from the Constitution itself (Constitutional
Court ruling of 14 March 2006).
One of the bases of legal regulation of these relations is
the relation of the corresponding person (a person who seeks to
acquire land by right of ownership, or a land owner) with the
State of Lithuania, i.e. his being a national subject or a
foreign subject: Paragraph 3 of Article 47 of the Constitution
provides that in the Republic of Lithuania foreign entities may
acquire ownership of land, internal waters and forests
according to a constitutional law.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be especially noted that land is not the
same as regards its character and useful features. The
Constitutional Court has held that the Constitution does not
prohibit grouping of land and other objects of natural
environment according to various criteria, inter alia according
to the purpose of their use; this must be done when taking
account of characteristics of corresponding natural objects and
other factors of natural environment (Constitutional Court
ruling of 14 March 2006).
In this context it needs to be noted that in Paragraph 1
(wording of 25 October 1992) of Article 47 of the Constitution
established the right of only citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania and of the state to hold land by right of ownership,
save one exception: plots of land could belong to a foreign
state by right of ownership for the establishment of its
diplomatic missions and consular posts according to the
procedure and conditions established by laws (Paragraph 2
(wording of 25 October 1992) of Article 47 of the
Constitution). Paragraph 2 (wording of 20 June 1996) of Article
47 of the Constitution specified expressis verbis that
municipalities, other national entities as well as those
foreign entities conducting economic activities in Lithuania
which are specified by the constitutional law in accordance
with the criteria of European and Transatlantic integration
chosen by the Republic of Lithuania may be permitted to acquire
the ownership of non-agricultural land plots; also the limits
on the sizes of such land lots of non-agricultural land, which
were acquired as ownership, were established-such lots had to
be required for the construction and operation of buildings and
facilities necessary for the direct activities of such
entities. Prior to coming into force on 24 February 2003, the
23 January 2003 Law on Amending Article 47 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania, by Article 1 whereof Article 47
(wording of 20 June 1996) of the Constitution was amended and
set forth in a new wording, foreign subjects had been
prohibited from acquiring agricultural land in Lithuania.
Although Article 47 (wording of 23 January 2003) of the
Constitution no longer contains the provision explicitly
mentioning non-agricultural land (or land of any other
purpose), it does not mean that it is impossible to
differentiate the legal regulation of relations of land (inter
alia of land property and of its use) according to whether
corresponding land lots are to be ascribed to agricultural land
or land of other purpose.
4. It is permitted to make changes in the ascribing of
land lots to agricultural land or to land of other purpose
(inter alia after qualitative changes in corresponding
resources of land take place).
In this context one is to mention that agricultural land
is a limited natural resource of exceptional value, its quality
and areas with rich soil are constantly decreasing due to
industrial impact, urban expansion and other factors. In order
to preserve the useful characteristic of agricultural land, the
legislator has a duty to establish clear criteria of changing
of agricultural land into land of other purpose, while in the
course of changing the purpose of land one must pay heed to the
public interest.
5. When regulating, in a differentiated manner, the
relations linked with land property and its use, the
legislator, when taking account of the type (category) of land,
may establish a land legal regime, inter alia conditions,
limitations and prohibitions regarding the property, its use,
economic and other activity. The said limitations and
prohibitions must be constitutionally grounded.
Such limitations and prohibitions may be established to
all natural and legal persons, regardless of by what right the
agricultural land is possessed, i.e. whether by right of
ownership, rent, use or other right.
It needs to be especially emphasised that the law must
establish such legal regulation whereby land lots, if they are
ascribed to agricultural land, are used in particular for
agricultural purpose by the owners and/or users, that the
character of agricultural land is preserved until the purpose
of agricultural land is changed according to the criteria
established by the law.
Under the Constitution, the legislator has a duty to
establish corresponding means of control and sanctions for
failure to follow the established requirements. The legislator
may also provide for, by means of a law, such means of social
engineering, which would induce the owners and/or users of
agricultural land lots to use these lots precisely according to
the established purpose of that land.
6. Taking account of the nature of land as a limited
resource, as well as of the necessity to preserve the useful
characteristics of agricultural land, one is to hold that the
legislator may also establish, by means of a law, the maximum
sizes of land lots which are permitted to be acquired by right
of ownership.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be noted that the possibility of the
differentiated legal regulation of relations linked with land
property and use, inter alia according to the purpose of land,
implies also a possibility to legislatively establish different
maximum sizes of agricultural land lots and of land lots of
different purpose, which are allowed to be acquired by right of
ownership.
However, it needs to be emphasised that when different
maximum sizes of agricultural land lots and of land lots of
different purpose, which are allowed to be acquired by right of
ownership, are being established, one may not violate the norms
and principles of the Constitution, inter alia the imperative
of social harmony, justice, proportionality, equal rights of
persons and other principles. Under the Constitution, it is not
permitted to establish any such legal regulation whereby
unequal economic conditions are established to the existing or
potential business entities, whereby development of business is
hindered, freedom of economic activity, the economic efforts
useful to society and initiative are restricted.
It needs to be underlined that the maximum sizes of
agricultural land lots permitted to be acquired by right of
ownership must be determined by the character of agricultural
land and the public interest sought, but not by such criteria,
which cannot be grounded constitutionally (as, for instance, a
requirement that the acquirers of agricultural land lots should
either farm that land by themselves, or live in a corresponding
locality, so that they would be forced to choose a certain form
of farming, which is possible under laws, etc.).
It needs to be held that in itself the establishment (by
means of a law) of maximum sizes of agricultural land lots
permitted to be acquired by right of ownership does not mean
that the right of ownership of a person, freedom of economic
activity and other constitutional rights and freedoms are
constitutionally groundlessly restricted. On the contrary, the
establishment of such maximum sizes may be one of the means
creating preconditions for rational management of agricultural
land, preservation of tilled agricultural land, proper
development of agricultural business, promotion of fair
competition in agriculture, non-permission to monopolise the
production and the market, etc.
Such aspirations grounding the maximum sizes of
agricultural land lots permitted to be acquired by right of
ownership are to be treated as expressing a public interest
protected by the Constitution.
In this context one is to mention the fact that the
Constitution does not prohibit, either, to legislatively
establish the minimum sizes of agricultural land lots permitted
to be acquired by right of ownership, for instance, the size
which is necessary in order that a natural person might
register the farm of a farmer, also in order to help prevent
possible abuses, as, for instance, acquisition of agricultural
land lots and registering of the farm of a farmer (allegedly
meant for agricultural activities) only for the purpose of
making use of corresponding exceptions to and concessions in
the legal regulation and of making use of the state and other
support, while the said agricultural land was used not for
agricultural, but other activities.
7. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be emphasised especially that under the
Constitution, in general, it is not impermissible to establish
(by means of law) different maximum sizes of land lots of the
same purpose (including agricultural land) which are permitted
to be acquired by right of ownership.
However, under the Constitution it is not permitted to
establish any such legal regulation, where the maximum sizes of
agricultural land lots permitted to be acquired by right of
ownership would be established in regard of different subjects
not according to constitutionally grounded criteria, since then
one would create pre-conditions to violate the constitutional
rights of some of these subjects, inter alia the right to
freely choose a business, the constitutional principle of equal
rights of persons and other provisions of the Constitution, one
would permit to distort fair competition in the agricultural
market.
8. As mentioned, Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the
Law (wording of 15 July 2004) established the maximum size of
agricultural land lots permitted to be acquired by legal
persons by right of ownership as 2000 ha.
It needs to be held that in the constitutional justice
case at issue there are no legal arguments permitting to assert
that the established maximum size is groundless,
disproportionate or unjust in any other regard, that by such
legal regulation a certain right or freedom of the person would
be restricted more than necessary when the constitutionally
grounded public interest is being sought. Therefore, there are
not any legal arguments, either, to assert that the
establishment of the said maximum size violates Paragraph 1 of
Article 29, the provision "the law shall <...> protect freedom
of fair competition" of Paragraph 4 of Article 46 and the
provision "each human being may freely choose a <...> business"
of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution.
9. The maximum size-300 ha-of agricultural land lots
permitted to be acquired by natural persons by right of
ownership, which is established in Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 of the Law (wording of 15 July 2004), is to be
assessed differently.
It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling that
that the maximum sizes of agricultural land lots permitted to
be acquired by right of ownership must be determined by the
character of agricultural land and the public interest sought,
but not by such criteria, which cannot be grounded
constitutionally, as, for instance, a requirement that the
acquirers of agricultural land lots should either farm that
land by themselves, or live in a corresponding locality, so
that they would be forced to choose a certain form of farming,
which is possible under laws, etc. It was also held that
although under the Constitution, in general, it is permissible
to establish (by means of law) different maximum sizes of
agricultural land lots which are permitted to be acquired by
right of ownership, however, under the Constitution it is not
permitted to establish any such legal regulation, where the
maximum sizes of agricultural land lots permitted to be
acquired by right of ownership would be established in regard
of different subjects not according to constitutionally
grounded criteria, since then one would create pre-conditions
to violate the constitutional rights of some of these subjects,
inter alia the right to freely choose a business, the
constitutional principle of equal rights of persons and other
provisions of the Constitution, and one would permit to distort
fair competition in the agricultural market.
It needs to be held that there are not any differences of
the character and extent between legal and natural persons, who
seek, subsequent to the Law (wording of 15 July 2004), to
acquire agricultural land which would be used for agricultural
activities, which would justify the maximum size-300 ha-of
agricultural land lots permitted to be acquired by natural
persons by right of ownership, when in regard of legal persons
such size is much bigger, i.e. 2000 ha. By such legal
regulation natural persons are discriminated in regard of legal
persons, the opportunities of the former to compete in the
agricultural market are limited, the freedom of their business
is disproportionately restricted.
10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of
the Law (wording of 15 July 2004) to the extent that it
establishes that the maximum size of agricultural land lots
permitted to be acquired by natural persons by right of
ownership is 300 ha, but not 2000 ha, is in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision "the law shall <...>
protect freedom of fair competition" of Paragraph 4 of Article
46 and the provision "each human being may freely choose a
<...> business" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the
Constitution.
11. Having held this, on the grounds of the same arguments
one is also to hold that the provision "a person who acquired
an agricultural land plot bigger than 300 ha prior to the entry
into force of this Law cannot, under this Law, acquire
agricultural land" of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law
(wording of 15 July 2004) to the extent that it consolidates
that the persons who acquired an agricultural land plot bigger
than 300 ha prior to the entry into force of this law cannot,
under this law, acquire agricultural land inasmuch that the
total area of agricultural land belonging to him by right of
ownership is not bigger than 2000 ha, is in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision "the law shall <...>
protect freedom of fair competition" of Paragraph 4 of Article
46 and the provision "each human being may freely choose a
<...> business" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the
Constitution.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55, 56 and
Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Lithuania has passed the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of
the Republic of Lithuania Provisional Law on the Acquisition of
Agricultural Land (wording of 15 July 2004; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 124-4490) to the extent that it
establishes that the maximum size of agricultural land lots
permitted to be acquired by natural persons by right of
ownership is 300 ha, but not 2000 ha, is in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision "the law shall <...>
protect freedom of fair competition" of Paragraph 4 of Article
46 and the provision "each human being may freely choose a
<...> business" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognise that the provision "a person who acquired
an agricultural land plot bigger than 300 ha prior to the entry
into force of this Law cannot, under this Law, acquire
agricultural land" of Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the
Republic of Lithuania Provisional Law on the Acquisition of
Agricultural Land (wording of 15 July 2004; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 124-4490) to the extent that it
consolidates that the persons who acquired an agricultural land
plot bigger than 300 ha prior to the entry into force of this
law cannot, under this law, acquire agricultural land inasmuch
that the total area of agricultural land belonging to him by
right of ownership is not bigger than 2000 ha, is in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, the provision "the law shall
<...> protect freedom of fair competition" of Paragraph 4 of
Article 46 and the provision "each human being may freely
choose a <...> business" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
3. To recognise that Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of
the Republic of Lithuania Provisional Law on the Acquisition of
Agricultural Land (wording of 15 July 2004; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 124-4490) is not in conflict with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
4. To dismiss the part of the case concerning the
compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Republic of
Lithuania Provisional Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural
Land (wording of 28 January 2003; Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2003, No. 15-600) to the extent that it established
different maximum sizes of agricultural land plots which are
permitted to be acquired by natural persons, agricultural
companies and legal persons with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis