The Constitutional Court: the legislator has enhanced responsibility at the time of closing a decades-long process10 May 2018
The Constitutional Court established that some provisions of the 2016 Act on amending certain Acts related to compensation had been unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court also established an omission by the National Assembly in the context of the amendment of the compensation rules applicable to arable land as in certain cases the legislator prevented the persons entitled to compensation from properly exercising their option to purchase.
A person entitled to compensation submitted a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court as he had intended to take part at an auctioning that had been cancelled due to the challenged legal regulation taking effect. The petitioner complained about the persons entitled to compensation not being able to obtain their taken lands by using their compensation notes – in the absence of an auctioning. The petitioner holds that his right to property has been violated due to the distraction of his option to purchase and also the requirement of legal certainty as part of the rule of law requires holding the last land auctioning that has not been performed yet.
The Constitutional Court found the complaint to be well-founded. As underlined by the Court: the state must set up the system of guarantees that renders the right to property operational. The challenged law terminated the rules on auctioning arable land while the entitled persons still have the option to purchase for the enforcement of their compensation claims. The Constitutional Court emphasized: at the time of annulling certain provisions of the law, the legislator is deemed to act with due diligence if it leaves no open legal relations behind and if the enforcement of statutory rights enshrined by the Fundamental Law are not prevented due to the annulment.
The Constitutional Court therefore called upon the National Assembly to meet its legislative duty by 31 December 2018.
Judges Dr. Imre Juhász, Dr. István Stumpf and Dr. András Varga Zs. attached a concurring opinion to the decision.