You Can Use Land Without Violating Ownership Rights

A Proposal for the Regulation on Amendments and Supplements to the Regulation on the Record of Agricultural Land Use has been sent for public discussion, touching on the sensitive issue of using land whose owners have left Croatia for various reasons or have died, resulting in a backlog of heirs who do not care for it. There are various objections and proposals, so I would like to address this a bit. One esteemed participant in the discussion warns that if the regulation is adopted, it will violate one of the fundamental human rights, namely the right to ownership, exposing Croatia to a large number of lawsuits and likely significant damages to the owners.

Namely, in paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the proposed amendments, it states that a farmer who has been a co-owner of the land he has used for five years, while the other co-owners are of unknown residence and have not used it during that time nor contested the use/possession/co-ownership of the land, will have to provide a certificate from the JLRS for registration in ARKOD (the record of agricultural land use in digital form). If, however, five years of use have not passed, paragraph 6 states that the co-owner farmer will have to provide a certificate from at least one of the co-owners granting the farmer consent to use that agricultural land for registration in ARKOD.

An Advanced Regulation

The participant in the discussion sees an additional problem in that this is not a legal but a sub-legal proposal and emphasizes that it ‘essentially infringes on constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitutional Law on the Inviolability and Integrity of Ownership as well as violations of rights regulated by the Law on Ownership and Real Rights.’ He also notes that other co-owners do not have to know, nor are they obliged to grant anyone their ownership for use without question, i.e., without request. This, he warns, unlawfully abuses Croatian regulations that should guarantee legal security and protection of ownership rights.

I respect all that has been previously written and believe that the esteemed participant in the discussion is a noble person concerned not only for the rights of owners with unknown addresses but also for the rights of all of us. Because if we are now going to violate the rights of some owners, tomorrow this will be a precedent that will justify the possible loss of rights for all of us in Croatia. But with an apology to him, I must say that I do not agree with him.

On the contrary, I believe that this regulation is a better solution than, in my opinion, a discriminatory regulation adopted perhaps ten years ago, which stipulated that owners of agricultural land who do not put it to use will be penalized, and due to neglect, it has overgrown with bushes and weeds. At that time, it was interpreted as a means to punish Serbs from the formerly occupied areas who fled or were expelled after the ‘Storm’ operation, or to force them to sell the land as cheaply as possible because they do not intend to return. It is difficult to prove that this was the goal, but such an outcome could undoubtedly be expected, and since it was a sensitive political issue, the regulation was never implemented, even though not only Serbs left behind neglected land.

Primary and Secondary Rights

The current proposal does not actually infringe on the constitutional rights of those landowners who are difficult to locate. In my opinion, it is a greater evil to leave that land neglected, or to prohibit the use of land by a person who wants to cultivate it, produce something, earn money, and pay taxes. Ownership is still not contested, and on the other hand, it legally circumvents the regulation that prescribes penalties for owners due to neglect of land.

Ownership is an inseparable part of human rights, a civilizational achievement, but it is a secondary right compared to primary elements such as the right to life, choice, opinion… As a secondary right, it is the only part of human rights that can be taken away for a higher interest (for example, land to build a road). So if it can be taken away for a higher interest, then someone can be given land for use without taking away ownership to prevent it from overgrowing with bushes and weeds, as that is also a higher interest. Therefore, I would propose that the proposal for this regulation be further expanded to include individuals who are not co-owners of the land but wish to use it.

POST SCRIPTUM

The same problem Croatia has with property owned by companies in BiH, Serbia… The dust was raised a few years ago when Croatia decided to offer seaside resorts to entrepreneurs for renovation and use. Although it is indeed the owner who will decide how to renovate the property, the matter is much more complex. Namely, owners from those countries show little interest in their property, and something must be done about it, ensuring that their rights are not violated.