read more
Big appetite for land. What next for large agricultural tenants?
Does Poland stand by the law? Is this a rhetorical question when we look at the legislative process of the Act on the management of agricultural real estate of the state treasury and the effects this law has brought?
I ask the above question in relation to the Act of September 16, 2011 amending the Act on the management of agricultural real estate of the State Treasury and amending certain other acts. This law is better known to farmers in Poland as the Act on the so-called thirties. This law obliged tenants of state land to pay 30% of the rented land to the state treasury (exempt from leasing). Then, this land was owned and even went to farmers who expanded their family farms.
Not at night, but by surprise
The act was adopted at the last session of the Sejm in 2011, and was pushed through by the then Minister of Agriculture, Marek Sawicki. This law was passed by a majority of votes, and not only the ruling PO-PSL coalition, but also the PiS club, supported its adoption.
The discussion on the reasonableness (read: constitutionality) of this law began immediately after its adoption. Obviously, the tenants whose arguments were economically justified were opposed to him. In turn, those who counted on expanding their farms from the 30s flowing into the state treasury rubbed their hands. However, the reality – which I do not want to dwell on here – turned out to be brutal. I will return to the quality of the law and its constitutionality, because this law, as is widely known, violated the rights of some people, while forcing others to participate in unlimited tenders in order to obtain additional land for cultivation.
read more
The Tribunal was silent
Farmers have been waiting 13 years for lawyers to stop arguing about it in the media and at various more and less formal meetings. The miracle happened in May this year. One of the common courts decided, considering not the first case involving a tenant's accusation, that it would ask the opinion of the Constitutional Tribunal. After all, what is it for, as will be discussed in a moment?
Surprisingly, a lawyer submitted a complaint to the Constitutional Tribunal and, let us remember, 13 years have passed, the complaint was joined by the Ombudsman. To be precise, I would like to remind you that the company appealed against the amendment to the Act on the management of agricultural real estate of the State Treasury in the scope relating to lease agreements for these real estates, concluded before its entry into force and still in force, which did not contain a provision on the possibility of excluding 30% of the usable area during the amendment. . Was it fair to exclude 30% of agricultural land from the lease under pain of losing the tenants' right of priority to purchase the leased land and the right to conclude another contract without bidding? In the applicants' opinion, this had a direct and severe impact on their property rights. I would like to mention that the tenants associated in their federation tried to challenge this law much earlier, but the Constitutional Tribunal found that they were not representative of the entire community and did not accept the complaint. Will he consider it now and do it quickly, keeping the good of farmers in mind? I doubt it.
read more
KOWR excludes land – the tenant is the enemy of the people
Constitutional Tribunal dictated by politicians
Life itself, and the Court itself. TK is skilled at tackling "difficult" topics. Sorry, not difficult ones, but political ones, motivated by a political environment favorable to him.
In May this year, he obliged the Pegasus investigative committee to refrain from taking any factual or legal actions until the Tribunal considers the application of a group of MPs. Citizens are not allowed to be eavesdropped? Yes, yes, it's allowed!
In June, he found that the act, adopted by the Sejm when the Speaker of the Sejm did not allow MPs Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik to participate in the deliberations, was unconstitutional. Judge Krystyna Pawłowicz also stated that she expected the Sejm to obstruct the proceedings and resigned from questioning its representatives.
In December last year, the Tribunal, at the request of Law and Justice MPs, issued a security measure that was supposed to block changes in Telewizja Polska. It obliged the State Treasury to refrain from liquidating public radio and television companies and from changing their management boards. Is hate not allowed?
Also last year, he pointed out that there are no restrictions in the application of the president's pardon power, and pardons cannot be controlled. I won't remind you which politicians they were talking about…
Will a politician pick up the phone this time and "nicely ask" the Tribunal not to rush into issuing a ruling – and let things continue according to the boiling frog syndrome? We've been at each other's throats for thirteen years, so what's stopping us from continuing like this for the next few years? Let the Minister of Agriculture scratch his head as to what to do and how to continue or not to deal with the act adopted on September 16, 2011.
Together with Iwona Dyba, we remind you what happened with the act on the so-called thirties. We quote archival statements on this issue and ask what's next? Is the solution proposed by the tenants acceptable to the Minister of Agriculture? Our video material will feature: Marek Sawicki, Henryk Kowalczyk and Grzegorz Brodziak, president of the Polish Agricultural Federation.
