Informace o publikaci
Undoing undone Injustice: Nemzeti Földügyi Központ and the continuing Saga over Usufruct Rights in Hungary (Case C-419/23)
| Autoři | |
|---|---|
| Rok publikování | 2025 |
| Druh | Článek v odborném periodiku (nerecenzovaný) |
| Citace | |
| Popis | The Nemzeti Földügyi Központ (NFK) C-419/23 case is the most recent iteration of a growing list of cases concerning usufruct rights in Hungary. Yet, it presents numerous novelties vis-a-vis the Court of Justice’s prior case-law in the area. Segro, Commission v. Hungary and Grossmania all concerned in one way or another Hungarians, whereas the NFK case concerns two foreign investors’ conflicting rights under EU law. The prior case-law concerned the 2013 law on Transitional Measures, which limited land rights to close family of Hungarians, whereas NFK concerns the Hungarian legislature’s recent change to that law, and thus the implementing legislation of Commission v. Hungary. Finally, and most significantly, the prior case law in Luxembourg concerned applicants that wanted their usufruct rights reinstated. In NFK, the German-resident applicant wanted the restored usufruct rights again deleted—re-establishing the situation that was found contrary to EU law—to gain back her unencumbered right over the Hungarian land. In other words, she sought to use EU law to circumvent EU law. A slim chance of success. Nonetheless, the findings of the Court, while far from unexpected, present novelties as well. Grossmania’s resolution to the Cornelian dilemma between the principles of certainty and legality is not transplantable to any context; illegal uncertainty is of a different flavour to legal certainty when considered next to finality. And it is political factors which weigh as much as legal. Next, the judgment’s contextualisation of the case may not have gone far enough, which may have implications for the land situation in Hungary and perhaps future case-law. Finally, the judgment shows the Court of Justice breaking new ground in European human rights law by interpreting ‘lawfully acquired’ under Article 17 of the Charter. That provision does not appear in the document with which the Strasbourg Court is tasked with ensuring observance, and thus presents new terrain for the European human rights landscape. |