Decision No. 5 of 27 March 2018 on Constitutional Case No. 11/2017
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request submitted by the Supreme Bar Council (SBC), exercising its powers under Article 150, paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria. The subject matter of the case concerns the constitutionality of § 15 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Act Amending and Supplementing the Agricultural Land Ownership and Use Act (TFP AASALOUA), as well as Article 37i (with the exception of paragraph 1, last sentence, paragraph 2, paragraph 3, paragraph 4, last sentence, paragraph 5 and paragraph 15), Article 37m, and Article 42 of the Agricultural Land Ownership and Use Act (ALOUA). According to the Supreme Bar Council, § 15 of the TFP AASALOUA and Article 37m, paragraph 4 of the ALOUA are contrary to Articles 4, 17 and 19 of the Constitution. The applicant further argues that § 15 of the TFP AASALOUA, Article 37i (with the exception of paragraph 1, last sentence, paragraph 2, paragraph 3, paragraph 4, last sentence, paragraph 5 and paragraph 15), Article 37m, as well as Article 42 of the ALOUA, are contrary to Article 5, paragraph 4 and Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
The Court notes that the expectations of legal subjects that legislation will remain unchanged are not constitutionally protected. The amendments introduced by § 15 of the TFP AASALOUA pursue the legitimate objective of the State to implement a policy ensuring that pastures, meadows and grazing lands are leased or rented primarily to persons who will use them in accordance with their principal designated purpose. All contracts subject to readjustment were concluded under rules aimed entirely at safeguarding the public interest.
The challenged legal framework does not concern the deprivation of rights, much less of property rights, but rather the imposition of fully achievable requirements enabling the relevant lease and tenancy agreements to remain in force. Contrary to the allegation in the request that the challenged amendments provide solely for the termination of concluded lease and tenancy agreements, the legislator has afforded lessees and tenants the opportunity to bring their agreements into conformity with the substantive legal requirements of Article 37i, paragraph 1 of the ALOUA. The opportunity thus provided is consistent with the principle of proportionality, since the challenged provisions do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary for achieving the legitimate objectives pursued by the legal framework under consideration.
There is no conflict between the challenged provisions and Article 19 of the Constitution. In the present case, lessees and tenants of agricultural land do not pursue an economic enterprise on the leased pastures, meadows and grazing lands other than carrying out the minimum activities necessary to maintain the agricultural land in good agricultural condition, which constitutes the basis for receiving support under area-based payment schemes and measures.
The Court also finds no inconsistency between the challenged legal framework and Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution. The provisions of subordinate legislation referred to by the applicant, which allegedly created “unequal treatment of agricultural producers on the basis of the social criterion of ‘social status’”, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Nothing in the challenged provision supports the allegation that its adoption violated the “rules of consistency between different laws”.
The Supreme Bar Council does not advance specific arguments concerning the alleged unconstitutionality of Article 42 of the ALOUA. Rather, it submits that, if the other challenged provisions of the Act were to be declared unconstitutional, Article 42 would consequently lose its purpose, insofar as it regulates administrative offences related to the application of § 15 of the TFP to the AASALOUA. Since the Constitutional Court did not find the remaining challenged provisions unconstitutional, it likewise considers the request of the Supreme Bar Council unfounded in this respect.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution (the competence to rule on requests for a declaration of unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court rejects the request of the Supreme Bar Council seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of § 15 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Act Amending and Supplementing the Agricultural Land Ownership and Use Act, Article 37i (with the exception of paragraph 1, last sentence, paragraph 2, paragraph 3, paragraph 4, last sentence, paragraph 5 and paragraph 15), Article 37m, and Article 42 of the Agricultural Land Ownership and Use Act.
The decision was adopted with two dissenting opinions.