Kontrowersje wokół modelu spłat z gospodarstwa rolnego
Controversies on the model of repayment of farm shares
Languages of publication
Legal solutions of the model of repayment of farm shares emphasise the significance of the financial function of family farms. The present wording of Article 216 § 1 of the Civil Code is a strong expression of such an approach. Repayment has become a general institution, in terms of its admissibility; repayment can be obtained by co–owners independent of fulfilling any subjective conditions. The provisions of Article 216 § 1 of the Civil Code, in its present wording, lead to a conclusion that this solution was aimed more for the protection of ownership than for the development of farms as agricultural production units. No doubt that the need for the protection of a family farm cannot have the same meaning in different situations. The priority of the financial function is not expressed in all cases by the hierarchy of objectives. In some situations, the priority is the protection of production interests. This results from the content of Article 216 § 2 of the Civil Code, stipulating the possibility of the reduction of repayment of farm shares. Obviously, Article 216 § 2 of the Civil Code is based on economic arguments. Such an approach is correct; yet, if the protection of a family farm is the basis of the agricultural system the role of a farm as a production unit must not be exposed. The interests of co–owners deprived of their ownership rights by the reduction of the repayment of farm shares must also be taken into consideration. I find the solution of Article 216 § 2 of the Civil Code preferential for that co–owner who takes over the farm. It must be accented once again, however, that co–owners are not treated as equal subjects. I find this fact positive from the economic point of view, doubts arise if you analyse the position of co–owners from the point of view of the guarantee of ownership.
Publication order reference