Teaching Land Law: Controversy and Land Policy in Hungary from 1948 to 1968

Topic of the study. During the harsh Stalinization from 1948 agriculture had to be collectivized while land was not nationalized by decree as the Bolsheviks did in Russia in 1917. The Soviet legal system was a pattern for jurists but the differences made the transition to “socialism” more rugged and controversial. The legal scholars had to interpret a situation which had to develop further to full “socialization”. In order to do that, a “cooperative law” and a “land law” had to be created and taught as part of “agricultural law”. Research questions and methods. Land law consisted of regulations regarding private farmers and collective agricultural producers (cooperatives, state farms etc.), theoretically in the whole research period. How did the agrarian, cooperative and land policy affect legal theory on land tenure system? What kind of scientific dispute emerged on this matter and how did the attempts of codification of land law affect legal education? Various types of sources were evaluated, for instance protocols of council meetings of the faculty of law of two universities, archival sources, articles and studies from authors who taught land law and took part in its debate and codification. Results and conclusions. Law was used as a tool to boost transformation, and the lawmakers and jurists faced a paradox situation in which there was a need of codification of land law and to make it independent from other branches of law. On the one hand, jurists argued like Gyula Eörsi and Miklós Világhy that civil law had primatus in the legal system and property relations had to be included in that part of legislation during the “transition period”. On the other hand, many jurists, for instance Iván Földes, Imre Seres claimed that cooperative law or/and land law were separated branches of law despite the fact that mass collectivization was not completed until the spring of 1961.

ACQUIRING ELEMENTS OF SOLAR FARM DEVELOPMENT’S APPROVAL CONSIDERATION IN JOHOR

In order to fulfil the increasing energy demand, Malaysia aims to reduce carbon emission by 45 percent by 2030, and becomes fully carbon neutral by 2050. However, promoting this energy has inevitably forced this new industry to face some drawbacks particularly related to land matters, especially solar farm development, which is still new in the country and does not have any proper guidance. As the control of land planning and development is under the responsibility of the State Authority as enshrined in Article 74 of the Federal Constitution, the implementation is different in each state due to different land policy known as the State Land Rules. Thus, selected respondents have been interviewed, and the findings have been acquired regarding the elements of solar farm development’s approval consideration from the perspectives of land administrator, planner, and developer. This leads to a direction to standardize a legal framework of the land approval consideration for solar farm development especially in Johor.

Evaluation of Member State Provisions Addressing Land Policy and Restitution by the European Commission

The scope of action of EU Member States’ land policies lies at the intersection of positive and negative integration. Therefore, if a Member State restricts the ownership and use of agricultural land, it implies both the legitimate restriction of fundamental freedoms and that it achieves the targets listed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving the quality of living for farmers in keeping with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Despite this, it is worrisome that the EU’s control over negative integration does not allow Member States to create sustainable regulations. In contrast, the EU law leaves it entirely to the Member States to introduce restitution measures vis-à-vis the properties that were confiscated before their accession. The EU’s control prohibits direct discrimination against the citizens of other Member States. Under certain circumstances, according to the European Commission, the general principles of EU law and the provisions of the Charter can help individuals enforce restitution provisions. Bearing this in mind, we analysed the practice of the European Commission, its statements, and procedures against Member States, given that these are based on professional and/or political considerations. We examine the practice of the Commission and the CJEU vis-à-vis a Hungarian legislation on the so-called ‘zsebszerződések’. We also propose recommendations.