
The bailiff came to the farm of a farmer from Lomza in 2022, though that attempted to agree on the repayment of the debt. for the debt hectares of land. The land went under the hammer and quickly found a buyer, because there is a large hunger of land in the region. However Podlaska Isba Agriculture has requested to KOVR, that it exercise the right of purchase and distribute the land to the local farmers. KOVR of the statutory rights exercised, but the buyer went to court. The judgment
fell in late November of the year and KOVR got the proverbial “fig with mak”.
Read more
21 ha na pokrycie 104 tys. zl debt – such an license is the end of the farm
KOVR wanted to buy back the land
We asked the National Support Agriculture for comment on this issue, a in the response we read:
“Identified was a proceeding, the subject of which was the real estate of a area of over 20 ha, located in the patch of Molzinsk. This proceeding concerned the exercise by KOVR of the purpose under Article . 4 of the Act on shaping the agricultural system – right to acquire agricultural real estate in the result of enforcement proceedings. KOVR exercised its right because of the appearing in this territory the demand for agricultural land among local farmers individual (indicated m. by Podlaska Isba Agricultural) and the significant quantity of free land being in Agricultural Property of the State Treasury. The land that – implementing the statutory objectives – KOVR intended to give to individual farmers to increase or create farms families.”
The Court decided
The winners of the commercial bidding did however intend to relinquish the acquired land, so they referred the case to the court.
“This decision was met with objections from the party of the proceedings, who had acquired the right to property of this real estate as the result of enforcement proceedings, as consequently took this case to the judicial way. Judgment of the Court -.actually unfavorable for KOVR has done at the end of November br. and for now there is no known justification of it. After acquainting with its content (about which KOVR has applied to the Court with an appropriate application) KOVR will decide on the next steps legally. At the present time this judgment is not legal. In concerning the above the final comment in this case KOVR will issue after the judgment is final and the proceedings in this case have ended.” – informs us in the response to inquiries by the deputy director of KOVR Tomasz Pawelec.
Why did the Isba request?
It’s hard to stand in this issue on either side. If the land in the auction has been purchased in good faith by some other farmer, we would have reasons to question the judgment of the court, and to support the right of purchase. Why however have agricultural isba requested to KOVR to acquire this land?
This was the result of information receiving to the Island from farmers. It resulted from these, that the land had been bid significantly under value, that only one interested party, who in addition does not conduct agricultural activities. The farmer to whom previously owned the land informed that the bailiff had taken his assets, when there was still a settlement proceeding and was covered period of protection – explains us with the authorization of PIR Marek Siniły, employee office Anna Pietraszewicz, who handled this matter.
In this context the appearance of PIR and the actions of KOVR no longer surprise and seem to be fully justified.
As the Isba we could not verify this information, that is why we transmitted these concerns to KOVR. We considered, that KOVR should verify this transaction and eventually exercise the right of purchase. The authorities reacted in this case quickly and KOVR also performed the task. The judgment of the court is therefore for the Podlaskie authority of agriculture – concedes Anna Pietraszewicz.
Farmers’ concerns
The Podlaska Cabinet does not know, on what basis the judge has issued such a decision, because the decision has no justification yet.
We suspect, that some procedural or deadlines were determined – said our interviewer at PIR’s office. -This verdict however raises some concerns, that trading of agricultural land is not sufficiently in our law controlled, and the statutory right of purchase by KOVR is not.has sufficient power.
Farmers fear also, that the judgment of the District Court could set a dangerous precedent, on which will be invoked by subsequent judges trying similar cases.
As we also hear, problems with executions by commissioners have already been reported in the Parliament and former minister of agriculture Robert Telus (Law and Justice). He referred to the fact, that commissioners have no obligation to notify the KOVR of planned executions or licensing of agricultural land. A in this situation, KOVR can not effectively enforce the right to purchase such land. At the same time this same discrepancy in laws opens the furture to different abuses in trading of agricultural land.
Of course, agricultural land can be sold only to a farmer, but from the other side getting the rights of the farmer is not any hindrance, similar to finding a “pole” with such rights. A agricultural land is after all an excellent investment…
Fear unwarranted?
To farmers’ concerns about the precedented character of the judicial settlement also Tomasz Pawelec from KOVR responds: “it should be noted that the rulings of the court do not form the source of binding law of the Poland, they are issued in a concrete case and are concerning a concrete state of affairs.”
In the opinion of the representative of the KOVR the Ruling of the District Court in Bialystok “binds only in a concrete case and has no binding power in other cases.”
Precedent born precedent
However, it should be noted, that similar arguments – from the site of the resort of agriculture -also occurred in the public issue of Simon Kluka, a farmer from Lodz, who was obliged by the judgment to pay compensation to neighbors, who were disturbed by the odors and noises from his farm. In fact, Poland law in distinction to e.g., the Polish Polish law. to American, does not based on precedents, that mean that has been ruled in processes.
Practice indicates however, that both advocates in lawsuits, as and judges in the justifications of the judgments refer to settlements made previously in similar cases, before all in the courts of higher institution and Supreme Court. Particularly this happens when the settlement is of a less ambiguous case, in which the “letter of the law” does not indicate
the one proper interpretation of the law, a judgment is simple. This was just in the Case of Simon Kluki. Now
in the cases of immissions the other cases.Lawyers may refer to rulings of the Lodz courts issued in a farmer
from Lodz. And in this context the judgment in the case of purchase of KOVR in Podlasie appears unfortunately as such “precedent”.
According to the former owner
And what about the whole case is judged by the farmer, whose land was auctioned by the bailiff?
My
land was sold for 580 tys. £. I wish good luck to those who would want to buy in the round 21 ha at
such a free market – says Jaroslav Rogowski, previous owner of sporable land under Lomza. -The fact that the court rejectedtherighttopurchaseKOVRmeansso much,thatnowitwillbeableto expropriatefarmerswithnofear.I think,thatmanyinterestedinalikedecisioninthiscountryhavewaited.
The farmeralso saysthathestillisfightingtorecoverthe auctionedland,becauseinhisopinionthe bailiffhadnorighttoexecute it.