What change did parliament actually vote in to the constitution Tuesday, May 16th? Is it enough to trust the press conferences of parliamentarians that this was a necessary law to protect Slovaks from speculation? I would suggest first you read the law yourself, it is only one page. But for convenience, here are articles 20 and 44 of the constitution, as amended by this law. Additions are in bold, struck through is what is removed.
Čl. 20
(1) Každý má právo vlastniť majetok. Vlastnícke právo všetkých vlastníkov má rovnaký zákonný obsah a ochranu. Majetok nadobudnutý v rozpore s právnym poriadkom ochranu nepožíva. Dedenie sa zaručuje.
(2) Zákon ustanoví, ktorý ďalší majetok okrem majetku uvedeného v čl. 4 tejto ústavy, nevyhnutný na zabezpečovanie potrieb spoločnosti, potravinovej bezpečnosti štátu, rozvoja národného hospodárstva a verejného záujmu, môže byť iba vo vlastníctve štátu, obce alebo určenýchprávnickýchosôb. Zákon tiež môže ustanoviť, že určité veci môžu byť iba vo vlastníctve občanov alebo právnických osôb so sídlom v Slovenskej republike.
(3) Vlastníctvo zaväzuje. Nemožno ho zneužiť na ujmu práv iných alebo v rozpore so všeobecnými záujmami chránenými zákonom. Výkon vlastníckeho práva nesmie poškodzovať ľudské zdravie, prírodu, kultúrne pamiatky a životné prostredie nad mieru ustanovenú zákonom.
(4) Vyvlastnenie alebo nútené obmedzenie vlastníckeho práva je možné iba v nevyhnutnej miere a vo verejnom záujme, a to na základe zákona a za primeranú náhradu.
(5) Iné zásahy do vlastníckeho práva možno dovoliť iba vtedy, ak ide o majetok nadobudnutý nezákonným spôsobom alebo z nelegálnych príjmov a ide o opatrenie nevyhnutné v demokratickej spoločnosti pre bezpečnosť štátu, ochranu verejného poriadku, mravnosti alebo práv a slobôd iných. Podmienky ustanoví zákon.
Čl. 44
(1) Každý má právo na priaznivé životné prostredie.
(2) Každý je povinný chrániť a zveľaďovať životné prostredie a kultúrne dedičstvo.
(3) Nikto nesmie nad mieru ustanovenú zákonom ohrozovať ani poškodzovať životné prostredie, prírodné zdroje a kultúrne pamiatky.
(4) Štát dbá o šetrné využívanie prírodných zdrojov, o ochranu poľnohospodárskej a lesnej pôdy, o podporu vidieckeho charakteru života, o ekologickú rovnováhu a o účinnú starostlivosť o životné prostredie a zabezpečuje ochranu určeným druhom voľne rastúcich rastlín a voľne žijúcich živočíchov.
(5) Pôda ako neobnoviteľný prírodný zdroj požíva osobitnú ochranu zo strany štátu a spoločnosti.
(6)(5)Podrobnosti o právach a povinnostiach podľa odsekov 1 až 54ustanoví zákon.
The first thing to notice is that nothing in these changes to article 20 reserves the right of ownership of Slovak farmland to Slovak citizens or even Slovak companies. This change doesn‘t just give the power to limit who can purchase land either, but who can continue owning land. Laws can be written now that will take away farmland from its present owners, and they will be in line with the Slovak constitution.
The constitution doesn‘t specify who is a „designated person“. Nothing specifies the nationality or citizenship of „designated persons“, or any other requirements. Only a law, passed by a simple majority in parliament, will determine this. Such a law that one year may limit ownership to Slovak citizens, and the next year might establish that only those with a University degree in agriculture can own land, and perhaps in a few years, a different law opening ownership to foreign investors willing to start large industrial farms while depriving non-farming citizen owners of their land.
Drive through the countryside of Slovakia, and often you will see in a vast field of wheat one lonely strip of potatoes planted, by a small private owner who didn‘t want to rent his land to whichever agricultural corporation. Is it not harming the food security in Slovakia that the large tractors planting wheat and combines harvesting it must waste time and fuel to detour around some small field of potatoes, planted not in the interest of the food security of the state, but only in the interest of providing food for one family in a run down village?
And what when, in a few years, there is a different government? Perhaps they will install an agricultural minister friendly to GMOs. Is it not conceivable that farmers using conventional seeds could be ostracized as „anti-science“ and ultimately harming food production in Slovakia through their refusal to plant some „miracle“ GMO varieties? Is there any reason that a law cannot be written specifying details of what agricultural practices have to be followed to earn the status of a „designated person“ having the right to own farmland?
And actually, this doesn‘t just touch on land either-- any property that is related to food production is subject to this law-- tractors, combines, dairies, mills, slaughterhouses, animals, bakeries-- these are all things related to „food security“-- even for that matter retail stores and the warehouses and trucks that supply them. Nothing, from a constitutional perspective, would stop the nationalization into state ownership of food related industry.
As to article 44, it can only be supposed as a basis for yet more subsidies from the state budget. The limitation of human rights will be from that mostly in the form of higher taxes.
What is beyond belief is that every opposition party except for SaS voted for this law. The past years have seen constant protests by the opposition against corruption, and yet they vote now to give the government arbitrary power to determine who can own farmland and other property related to food production in Slovakia. Isn‘t this a bit worse potential for corruption than just paying a higher price for a CT machine? Do they not suppose that the definition of who is a „designated person“ will be written with a calculation to secure votes for Smer, SNS and Most-Hid?
Beyond this-- why should Slovaks who don‘t farm be prevented from investing in farmland? There is nothing wrong with being a landlord, it is a legitimate means to secure an income, and likewise a means of stewardship of the land, as the owner can make requirements in a rental contract as to what sort of agricultural practices are followed-- e.g. following biological practices to build up soil fertility can be required of the farmer who enters in to the rental agreement.