Вид на акта
искане
Дата
01-01-1970 г.
Към дело
/

  DECISION No. 8 OF JUNE 19, 1995 ON CC No. 12/95

Motion by 51 MPs of the 37th National Assembly who challenged the constitutionality of 13 paragraphs of the Law on the Amendment to the Law on Agricultural Land Ownership and Use (LALALOU)(DV No. 45 of May 16,1995).
1. The Constitutional Court ruled that curbing the freedom of the owner of agricultural land to decide to who to sell - Clause 3 of the LALALOU; depriving of ownership on lands on which structures (including illicit ones) have been put up or a right to build has been ceded - Clause 4 item 3 of the LALALOU; restricting the evidence instruments to prove title - Clause 5 of the LALALOU; compensating with property of unequivalent value - Clause 6 item 1 and Clause 11 item 1 of the LALALOU; pooling of lands and corporate seizin upon the request of owners who have opted to do so which puts them in a privileged position over other owners - Clause 12 of the LALALOU; reinstating the right to use as instituted by the Government on citizens' lands - Clause 22 of the LALALOU; denying remuneration to members of the liquidation councils under the Labor Code - Clause 28 item 1 of the LALALOU contravene Art. 17 paras 1 and 3 and Art. 19 para 2 of the C. These provisions of the LALALOU found to be anticonstitutional infringe on the right to ownership and the requirement of equality of legal arrangements regarding business.
2. The constitutional Court ruled down he following challenges:
- Clause 10 of the LALALOU that allows a municipal land commission to correct obvious real mistakes or revise its decisions within definite periods should it acquire knowledge of new circumstances or written evidence. The court control on these decisions is a constitutional guarantee of defense of the rights of the affected persons;
- Clause 12 of the LALALOU, the section which allows the Minister of Agriculture and Food Industry to revise, under certain conditions, a land division plan that has taken effect. Court defense is also possible in this case;
- Clause 14 of the LALALOU providing for compensation with lands from the state or municipal land reserve;
- Clause 19 item 2 of the LALALOU which allows persons who have acquired ownership on buildings from the assets of the cooperative farms, state farms and other organizations to use the part of the land free of structures and become its owners under definite conditions. Such land is owned by the Government and there is no obstacle to the Government to pass a law providing for its acquisition by other persons under the said conditions;
- Clause 26 item 1 of the LALALOU allows the Minister of Agriculture and Food Industry or a person who he has empowered to repeal decisions of the liquidation councils, even after their dissolution. The provision is not anticonstitutional as the Minister is a specialized state body of government that supervises the enforcement of the Law;
- Clause 28 of the Transitional and Concluding Provisions of the LALALOU in the remaining part outside the part that is referred to in item 1;
- Clause 29 of the Transitional and Concluding Provisions of the LALALOU concerning the constitution of the general meeting.