The issue of diversification of farms (agricultural holdings) is very complicated in the Polish legal system. The basic problem in this area is the lack of statutory definition in the state regulations. Due to the lack of this definition it is not possible do define clearly the purposes and directions of diversification. The indicated lack of statutory definition of diversification of agricultural holdings requires the search for the scope of this notion not only in a juridical approach but also in an economic one. On the whole, from the point of view of economic sciences diversification of farms means diversification in the structure of agricultural production as well as exploiting ground resources, capital and labour in farms for activities other than agricultural activity. It should also be added that the scale of production and incomes received from agricultural activity are determined by the condition of land resources in Polish farms, and above all, by fragmented land structure. Therefore there is no doubt that the Polish legislator should search for legal criteria for diversification which would also include the above mentioned economic parameters. The final purpose of such diversification should be the capacity to absorb the union support. In the Polish economic reality, necessity of supporting low output farms remains the main problem. This support should be based not only on the state funding but also union funding. This is a key issue for gradual change in land structure of farms. It seems essential to undertake complex activities aiming at the creation of full programme of changes in agriculture. ‘Rural’ policy of particular union states accepting legal instruments of diversification as a starting point should lead to lasting and balanced development of rural areas.
The principle of this article was not only the legal analysis of the content of the agricultural property lease agreement concluded by Agricultural Property Agency but, above all, positioning of this Agency in the process of concluding the abovementioned agreement. The necessity of looking into this matter again resulted from large scale changes in the Act dated 19 October 1991 on the management of agricultural properties owned by the Treasury and accompanying acts, introduced by the amending Act dated 16 September 2011 which came into effect as of 3 November 2011. The changes largely concerned the lease of agricultural properties owned by the Treasury. The basis of the article constituted also a lawsuit, during which the Agency was a party. The lawsuit caused changes in the property sale and lease procedure. The article also presents the basic legal requirements for the functioning of Agricultural Property Agency. The introduced legislative changes exposed the monopolistic position of the Agency. The statutory tendency to liquidate lease of the state–owned agricultural properties was also clearly presented, what met with criticism in the doctrine. Moreover, concerns were also aroused due the fact that the amended Act on the management of agricultural properties owned by the Treasury introduced legal instruments which allow for the unilateral interference in the content of lease agreements concluded for a definite period of time. Undoubtedly, the tenant of the state–owned agricultural property, in case of the greement concluded for a definite period of time, should receive a far–reaching legal protection. Only this type of protection guarantees achievement of the economic objective and allows for the permanence of management of the land held under lease. The amended act questions this permanence.
The subject of the paper is an analysis of the provision of Article 4 of the new Act of 5 August 2015 on the Shaping of the Agricultural Regime. The results of the study show that the mechanisms shaping the agricultural regime must be once again revised, including the ‘right to acquire’ land. The regulation of Article 10 of the 2015 Act has not removed or clarified the doubts arising from the provision of the 2013 Act on the Shaping of Agricul-tural Regime. Thus a question may be asked whether the right of acquisition is an effective tool for the shaping of the agricultural regime, especially since it has been very infre-quently resorted to by the Agency for Agricultural Land. Another question concerns the rationale for exempting close relatives from the right to acquire, or whether the right of acquisition should not be restricted in some other way. The paper ends with a recommen-dation that legislative work be commenced with a wider and more complex approach to the Act on the Shaping of the Agricultural Regime.
IT
.L’oggetto delle considerazioni è il diritto d’acquisto previsto anche nella nuova legge del 5 agosto 2015 sulla configurazione dell’ordinamento agrario. Ad analisi eseguita l’Autore afferma che è opportuno rivalutare i meccanismi di configurazione dell’ordina-mento agrario, tra i quali si colloca anche il “diritto di acquisto” del fondo. La regola-mentazione giuridica in esame, contenuta nell’art. 10 della legge del 2015, non chiarisce in alcun modo i dubbi apparsi nel contesto dell’art. 4 della legge del 2003 sulla configu-razione dell’ordinamento agrario. In particolare si pone la questione se il diritto di acquisto sia uno strumento efficace per la configurazione dell’ordinamento agrario dal momento che l’Agenzia per i Fondi Agricoli se ne serva di rado, ed anche se sia fondato escludere dalla cerchia di persone prossime i conviventi, se l’ambito di applicazione del diritto di acquisto non dovrebbe essere sottoposto a limitazioni apportate attraverso l’esclusione di alcuni contratti (p.es. un contratto a vita). A parere dell’autore è indicato intraprendere lavori legislativi di vasta portata per creare una legge completa sulla configurazione dell’ordinamento agrario.
Le considerazioni svolte riguardano il problema di applicazione delle disposizioni di legge sul regime agricolo nel campo relativo alle regolazioni giuridiche riguardanti l’agricoltura contenute nel codice civile. Nello specifico, tenendo conto della legge in esame, si intende discutere la successione delle aziende agricole, inclusa la divisione dell’eredità, di cui fa parte l’azienda agricola, la cessazione della comproprietà nonché la cessazione della divisione del patrimonio comune dei coniugi. L’obiettivo che il legislatore si è prefissato è stato quello di garantire la tutela dei terreni agricoli, prevista nelle disposizioni del codice civile, pure a livello della compravendita degli immobili agricoli. Sorgono, tuttavia, dubbi interpretativi relativi alla mancanza di identità semantica nelle espressioni utilizzate in entrambi gli atti giuridici, il che porta a modificare istituti codicistici. È inaccettabile che, in virtù delle disposizioni di leggi specifiche, vengano modificati gli istituti giuridici riguardanti l’agricoltura contenuti nel codice, posti a garanzia della proprietà agricola. Questo modo di „modificare” il codice civile porta a incoerenze e disfunzioni del sistema giuridico.
EN
The considerations concern the applicability of the provisions of the Act on shaping the agricultural system to the legal regulations of agriculture contained in the civil code. The focus is on the inheritance of agricultural holdings, as well as the division of inheritance consisting of an agricultural holding, the abolition of joint ownership of an agricultural holding and the division of joint property of spouses, taking into account the provisions of the Act on shaping the agricultural system. The intention of the legislator was to ensure protection of agricultural land also in the scope of trading in agricultural real estate that has been provided for in the civil code. However, there are doubts regarding the interpretation of the terms used in both legislative acts as it leads to certain differences in the understanding of institutions defined in the code. However, this is an unacceptable situation and the provisions of special laws must not change the legal definitions of agricultural institutions guaranteeing agricultural property. This way of "amending" the civil code results in the inconsistency and dysfunctionality of the legal system.
PL
Rozważania dotyczą stosowania przepisów ustawy o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego do regulacji prawnorolnych zawartych w Kodeksie cywilnym. Obejmują dziedziczenie gospodarstw rolnych, w tym dział spadku, w skład którego wchodzi gospodarstwo rolne, zniesienie współwłasności gospodarstwa rolnego (zarówno w drodze umowy, jak i orzeczenia sądowego) oraz podział majątku wspólnego małżonków, z uwzględnieniem regulacji ustawy o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego. Założeniem ustawodawcy było zapewnienie ochrony ziemi rolniczej także w zakresie obrotu nieruchomościami rolnymi, przewidzianej w przepisach Kodeksu cywilnego. Wątpliwości interpretacyjne budzi jednak brak tożsamości znaczeniowej zwrotów użytych w obu aktach prawnych, co prowadzi do modyfikacji kodeksowych instytucji. Nie do przyjęcia jest to, że mocą przepisów ustaw szczególnych zmianie ulegają kodeksowe instytucje prawnorolne stanowiące gwarancję własności rolniczej. Taki sposób „nowelizowania” Kodeksu cywilnego prowadzi do niespójności i dysfunkcjonalności systemu prawnego.
L’articolo si propone di definire i presupposti giuridico-costituzionali ed economici della costruzione giuridica di un’azienda a conduzione familiare sullo sfondo di quella di un’azienda agricola nel codice civile e nella legge dell’11 aprile 2003 sul regime agricolo. Nell’articolo è stato dimostrato che la disposizione dell’art. 23 della Costituzione è solo una dichiarazione politica, una sorta di manifesto ideologico. Affinché sia riconosciuta come norma direzionale, il legislatore ordinario dovrebbe completarla con contenuti adeguati. A questo proposito, non è sufficiente basare la definizione di un’azienda a conduzione familiare sulla necessità di limitare la compravendita degli immobili agricoli prevista nella legge sul regime agricolo. È necessario creare una costruzione moderna e al passo con i requisiti attuali. I cambiamenti dovrebbero andare in una direzione attentamente studiata, tenuto conto della politica agricola dello Stato.
EN
The aim of the article is to determine the legal, constitutional and economic assumptions of the legal construction of a family farm in the context of the construction of an agricultural holding in the Civil Code and in the Act of 11 April 2003 on shaping the agricultural system. It has been shown that the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution constitutes only a system declaration, a kind of ideological manifesto. In order for it to be recognised as a directional norm, it should be filled with the relevant content. A definition of a family farm as formulated in the Act on shaping the agricultural system is not sufficient in this respect. It is necessary to formulate a modern construction of such a holding which will meet the requirements of today. However, the direction of these changes should be carefully planned taking into account the agricultural policy of the state.
PL
Celem rozważań jest określenie założeń prawno-konstytucyjnych i ekonomicznych konstrukcji prawnej gospodarstwa rodzinnego na tle konstrukcji gospodarstwa rolnego w Kodeksie cywilnym i ustawie z 11 kwietnia 2003 r. o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego. W artykule wykazano, że przepis art. 23 Konstytucji RP stanowi jedynie deklarację ustrojową, rodzaj manifestu ideologicznego. Aby został uznany za normę kierunkową, ustawodawca zwykły powinien wypełnić go stosowną treścią. Niewystarczające jest w tym zakresie zdefiniowanie gospodarstwa rodzinnego na podstawie ograniczeń w obrocie nieruchomościami rolnymi w ustawie o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego. Konieczne jest stworzenia nowoczesnej i odpowiadającym współczesnym wymogom konstrukcji takiego gospodarstwa. Kierunek tych zmian powinien być jednak przemyślany i uwzględniający politykę rolną państwa.