| Abstract: | Žemės ūkio paskirties žemė yra išskirtinės vertės gamtos išteklius, tiesiogiai įtakojantis Lietuvos žemės ūkį, kuris neatsiejamas nuo šalies ekonomikos, socialinės gerovės. Šiandieninėje teisėje žemės ūkio paskirties žemei taikomi apribojimai tapo žemės nuosavybės teisės elementu, kuriuo vienas iš tikslų yra gamtos bei aplinkos apsauga. Tačiau yra nemažiau svarbios priemonės, kuriomis siekiama užtikrinti gamtos išsaugojimą užkertant kelią jos niokojimui, bei šių priemonių tinkamumas keliamiems tikslams pasiekti. Atliekant minėtus vertinimus labai svarbu atsižvelgti į tai, ar šios priemonės pačios savaime nepažeidžia pamatinių teisės nuostatų, kokias ekonomines paskatas jos suteikia žmogaus veiklai ir ar pasirinktos priemonės yra moralios.
Žemės ūkio paskirties žemės įsigijimo įstatyme nustatyti tikslai, išplaukiantys iš konstitucinių imperatyvų užtikrinti žemės tarnavimą tautos gerovei, išsaugoti gamtą ir vertingas teritorijas ateities kartoms, nustatydami specialias sąlygas žemės ūkio paskirties žemės disponavimui, varžo asmenų konstitucines teises į nuosavybės neliečiamumą, teisę pasirinkti gyvenamą vietą, ūkinės veiklos vykdymo formą.
Darbe keliama hipotezė, kad žemės ūkio paskirties žemės įgijimo nuosavybės teise ribojimai neproporcingi Žemės ūkio paskirties žemės įsigijimo įstatymo keliamiems tikslams. Siekiant patvirtinti ar paneigti šią hipotezę darbe visų pirma buvo išanalizuota žemės ūkio paskirties žemės samprata, turinys, bei iš žemės paskirties teisinio režimo kylantys nuosavybės ribojimai. Tai pat apžvelgiama proporcingumo principo samprata, bei keletas taikymo teorijų. Įgyvendinant darbo tikslus buvo vertinamas Žemės ūkio paskirties žemės įsigijimo įstatymu nustatytų žemės ūkio paskirties žemės nuosavybės teisės įgijimo ribojimų proporcingumas įstatymo tikslams. Šiam tikslui pasiekti buvo analizuojami, bei vertinami moksliniai darbai, Konstitucinio Teismo (toliau – LRKT) praktika, teisininkų įžvalgos, bei nuomonės.
Priimant žemės įsigijimo įstatymą manytina nebuvo iki galo išgrynintos teisinį reguliavimą paskatinusios problemos, neįvertintos galimos tokio reguliavimo pasekmės ilgalaikiu laikotarpiu. Priimant šį teisės aktą netinkamai ar nepilna apimtimi (ar visai nebuvo vertintos) tokio teisinio reguliavimo reali (optimali) nauda Lietuvos ekonomikai. Neišdiskutuota ir nepaneigta, kad įstatymu nustatytų tikslų galima buvo bandyti siekti mažiau ribojančiomis priemonėmis bei sąnaudomis.
Agricultural land is exclusively valuable natural resource, directly influencing Lithuanian agriculture, which is related with the state economy and social welfare. In our current legal system restrictions on agricultural land have become an element of property rights, whose aim is natural and environmental protection. However, the relevant means which, ensure environmental protection and prevent destruction are vital in order to achieve these aims. To carry out the above mentioned evaluations, it is essential to consider whether these means do not violate fundamental legal provisions, what economic incentives they provide to human activity and whether these means are ethical.
Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land stipulates the objectives consequent from constitutional imperatives to ensure land service for human welfare, to save the environment and valuable territories for future generations. Whereas these particular conditions determined for agricultural land disposition restrict the constitutional rights to the inviolability of property, the right to choose the place for residence and the form of economic activity.
The Master Thesis raises a hypothesis that property right restrictions on acquisition of agricultural land are disproportionate to the aims of Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land. In order to confirm or refute the hypothesis, first of all the paper analyzes the land concept of agricultural land, the content and the ownership restrictions arising from land use legal regime. The concept of proportionality and theories of application are also overviewed. In order to achieve the objectives, the proportionality of restrictions on agricultural land acquisition pursued by the Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land were assessed. The analysis includes scientific works, Constitutional Court practice, as a well as lawyers‘ insights and opinions.
The Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land was issued three years ago, however, the importance of the rights restricted by type law and the validity of restrictions have not been either analyzed or assessed. The paper overviews the original aims of the Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land without analyzing and assessing the state agricultural policy. It also aims to evaluate the means, which directly follows these aims. In the analysis of the aims of the law, the validity of the term "national assets" was questioned.
The rational use of land is subjective, as it is influenced by many variable factors. The Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land consolidates the concept of rationality in the use of agricultural land correlates with agricultural activity , agricultural competitiveness, etc. However, when evaluating the constitutional imperatives related with nature protection, these restriction are not always fully proportionate to the aims of the law.
The analysis of restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land in the law provide the idea that such regulations make exclusive conditions for one group of individuals- present Lithuanian farmers to use exclusive rights, which constitute obstacles for other individuals to purchase agricultural land easily. Moreover, this law does not protect or encourage family economic model based on the formation of holdings. The efforts to build agricultural holdings are complicated by not only by the restrictions of agricultural land, but also by the administrative burden directly related with these restrictions.
In order to evaluate the proportionality of restrictions on agricultural land acquisition, pursued by the Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land to its aims, ternary / three-tiered model elements were employed: suitability, necessity and proportionality sensu stricto. In order to apply the suitability criterion, the benefits of restrictions were evaluated in order to determine how much they contribute to the aims, set in the law.
The necessity criterion helps to determine and assess other alternative means, which do not much restrict or violate constitutional values. In this case, the rational link between the relevant aim and the means to achieve this aim were assessed in order to find out if the results could have been achieved by less restricting means, i.e. refusing certain restrictions or differentiating on the basis of other criteria. The social and damage ratio has also been taken into account in order to implement the correct aims and assess the proportionality of relations balance.
Proportionality sensu stricto was employed in order to evaluate the benefits of restrictions, stipulated in the Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land and compare them to the benefits from restricting persons rights.
The analysis of the proportionality of restrictions on agricultural land acquisition, determined by the Law on the Acquisition of Agricultural Land to its aims also evaluated the cost of restrictive means, considering different constitutional values, which should be protected by the law.
In order to prevent speculation, to preserve local traditions and ensure relevant use of agricultural land, to solve national energy or food supply issues, the European Union member states set various restrictions on agricultural land transactions. Therefore, in order to evaluate the influence of these restrictions for the market of agricultural land and land concentration, the practice to acquire agricultural land in these EU member states was overviewed.
Statistical data analysis of the EU member states practice on restrictions of agricultural land and the acquirers', brings us to the assumption that the existing restrictions are not very effective to prevent land concentration.
It might be assumed that at the time when the law on land acquisition was issued, the problems of legal regulation were not analyzed thoroughly enough. Thus, the possible long-term consequences of such regulation were not evaluated properly. During the adoption of this legislation, the actual (optimal) benefits of this legal regulation for Lithuanian economics were not fully (or at all) evaluated. There were not enough discussions to deny that the aims of the law could have been achieved by less restrictive measures and expenses.
In order to achieve the aims of the Law on Agricultural Land Acquisition, the alternative means, which could support and promote family holdings, would be a great incentive and alternative to industrial agriculture and agricultural land concentration. |
