I read on the eConsultation portal the comments on the Proposal for the Regulation on the rent of state agricultural land, and it seems to me that all those who warn that some proposals for these amendments are unconstitutional are right, and among those commentators are both farmers and serious agricultural companies. The full name of the Regulation is on the method of revaluation of rent, i.e., compensation for the use of agricultural land owned by the Republic of Croatia.
Commentators have several objections to the proposed amendments, and I will focus on the one I mentioned. Namely, Article 3 of the current Regulation specifies how the revalued rent, i.e., compensation for agricultural land for one hectare is calculated, in which the formula and some other criteria are stated, while it is nowhere stated that a specific amount (for example, 100 kuna) is paid for any land or pond throughout the country, which is also in accordance with the Law on Agricultural Land that does not provide for this. The law only provides that the determination of the value of the price will be determined by the Regulation in which a list of land (pastures, arable land…) and ponds in certain areas will be published, and this is resolved, as I mentioned, by formulas and some other criteria.
Seemingly innocuous
However, all those who have submitted objections to the amendments to the Regulation almost identically emphasize arguments about the unconstitutionality of adding paragraph 5 to Article 3 of the Regulation, which states: ‘Exceptionally from paragraph 3 of this article, the unit revalued rent (JRZ) for ponds is 190 kuna, and the unit revalued rent (JRZ) for common pastures is 475 kuna.’
Now I will not enter into whether this is a high or low price, but I want to warn that due to seemingly innocuous matters, the Regulation can be overturned by the Constitutional Court (according to the opinion of the commentators), and then we need to waste time correcting the Regulation, which primarily costs farmers and companies. Namely, one says that the proposal should only contain provisions that elaborate certain provisions of the Law on Agricultural Land (ZPZ) for their application and that, as a subordinate act, it must not impose obligations outside the legal framework prescribed by Article 50, paragraph 1 of the ZPZ. And in that article, it states: ‘The lease agreement will stipulate the adjustment of the rent amount for the duration of the contract to preserve the value of the rent.’
He believes (and he is followed by all other commentators) that the proposed method of revaluation of rent for ponds and common pastures achieves ‘a rental price whose exclusive goal is not determined by the ZPZ, i.e., the preservation of the value of the rent, but in reality, it unlawfully increases the revenue of the state and county budget and the budget of the local self-government unit’, which would violate the rule of law as the highest constitutional value, but also that subordinate acts must be in accordance with the Constitution and the law. This commentator emphasizes that in this case, agricultural producers are placed in a subordinate position ‘in relation to the state, i.e., regional and local self-government because they are unilaterally imposed a burden that does not take into account the provision of Article 50, paragraph 1 of the ZPZ, which allows revaluation, but only to the extent of preserving the value of the rent, but not beyond that, for example, with the aim of filling the state budget. In this sense, the addition of paragraph 5 to Article 3 of the Regulation is completely arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, and we propose its deletion.’
