Autor : Ján Hacaj

Review of development of land ownership rights in Slovakia after the year 1948

Approval of the laws related to renewal of land ownership rights and

agricultural property in the years 1990 – 92 in the first democratically elected
parliament after downfall of the over 40 year long communist totalitarian regime was
based on several theses.
Private ownership and its inviolability are part of basic human rights and
freedoms being an essential and inevitable condition of the democratic system in a
free society and economic prosperity. All the more it applies to land ownership and
agricultural prosperity. The owner treats it as a non-renewable natural resource which
feeds his family and which will feed also future generations of his descendants. The
ability to make a living for himself and his family gives a feeling of freedom,
independence and pride.
On the contrary, suppression and nonrespect of the ownership rights are at the
beginning of formation of nondemocratic totalitarian regime being the main reason of
ineffective land farming the result of which is complete devastation and absolute
deterioration.
Slovakia as part of Czechoslovakia had this sinister experience after the year
1948 when land owners - farmers, wine dressers, breeders – became the object of
communist experiment the tragic consequences of which last until now.
One of the basic principles of this experiments after overtaking the power by
the communists was common ownership of means of production, which was very
easily and very quickly achievable by passing the laws that would overthrow private
businesses and private ownership. It was called by a lofty name “nationalization”.
The real purpose of it was to deprive people of freedom in order to manage
and control everybody and everything from one centre
It was yet possible to propagandistically justify nationalization of private
companies by elimination of exploitation of employees, first of all workers, by
owners-employers.
It would be harder to justify nationalization of land of small owners the same
way who cultivated it, first and foremost, engaging all members of the family and did
not exploit anyone.
 It was mainly because of that reason that at the beginning the totalitarian
regime did not dare to nationalize agricultural land and property but copying the
practice of the Soviet Union in 1949 it declared the policy of nationalization and
socialization of the countryside. They started forcing farmers to join agricultural
cooperatives of the Stalin type.
Act No 50/1949 on joint agricultural cooperatives was adopted which as the
first did not respect and limited ownership rights to land and agricultural property.
Pursuant to this Act all the cooperatives in one community had to join into one
cooperative even without their members´ consent.

This forced collectivisation evoked resistance of farmers which was

suppressed by further repressive measures.
In 1955 the government of the Czech republic issued decree No 50/1955 according to
which farmers land and all the estates were transferred to socialist enterprises (joint
farming collectives, state property).
These enterprises had to pay compensation to small and medium farmers for
utilization of their property what had never happened though.
Bigger farmers, the so-called “kulaks” had to transfer all their property to free
utilization of the state. Those farmers and their families who did not join “voluntarily”
had to undergo physical and psychological terror and persuasion by the State Security.
Many farmers were imprisoned; many were put to death and many of them
died in jails. Eventually most of those rebels´ properties were seized.
Nonrespect of private ownership right was completed in 1975 by adoption of
Act No 123/145 Coll.in utilization of land and other agricultural property to support
production.
By adoption of this act complete superiority of utilization rights over
ownership rights was definitely achieved. Although most part of farming land was
formally still in the ownership of individuals, valid law did not allow them to cultivate
it. Socialist enterprises, which were utilizing this land for free, did not pay anything to
its owners.
In such an environment where land was considered to be the property of those
who utilized it several generations of employees of joint farming cooperatives, state
properties and state administration lived and worked in different positions beginning
from leading functionaries of the communist party, chief administrative employees up
to unqualified workers.
Formal land owners, especially their descendents got employed in other state
enterprises, were transferred to other branches and in many cases they left their
villages and countryside.
Naturally ownership links to land were definitely torn and the social class of
proud, free and independent farmers gradually perished.
In this social environment and atmosphere we started the process of recovery
of ownership relationships to land and agricultural property in the Federal Parliament
of CSFR in the years 1990-1992, which became the basic point of argument
concerning the form of transformation of socialist, centrally planned agriculture into
private competitive branch in conditions of a market globalizing economy.
While objectors of transformation and defenders of the old regime represented
a qualified majority in the parliament because of the above mentioned reasons,
owners of land and agricultural property who demanded restitution were in a much
worse position.
Various cooperative unions with teams of lawyers and functionaries who had
close connections with the most influential mass media and demagogically
manipulated public opinion did all their best in the effort to support objectors of
changes in the parliament and state administration. On the other side there were lonely
individuals speaking and at first weak support of newly arising associations of
landowners.
The reformatory government had so cope with the complexity of agricultural
problems and complications connected with restitution of land which only in Slovakia
involved approximately 8 million parcel units in the extravilain and 1 million in the
intravilain.
What worked to our advantage was that after the downfall of the communist
regime crimes and injustices committed against landowners during forced
cooperatization and socialization of the countryside began to be gradually brought to
light. People were little by little losing their fear to publicly disclose their tragic life
stories especially in the Czech republic.
Cyprian Juráš the first deputy minister of Agriculture and Food of the SR
gave competent, moral and institutional support to establish the Association of land
owners and agro entrepreneurs of Slovakia.
 Its functionaries were gradually gaining experience with functioning of
legislative process in the parliament and started to influence it.
More and more people were getting interested in their inheritance, land and
property, which was once acquired and owned, by their fathers and grandfathers.
They started to search for property sheets, extracts from land registers, decisions on
seizure of property etc in family heritage.
Objectors´ reasoning that restitution of agricultural property and necessary
transformation of cooperatives would cause famine got to the background of the
reasoning based on the elementary principle of justice that if something had been
stolen and it is known what had been stolen, who had been robbed and who the thief
was, in the name of justice it is necessary to return the stolen object to the original
owner.
Especially when it happened so massively and the thief was the state. That’s is
why it was necessary to regulate restitution of property and transformation of
cooperatives by law and not to overload courts with individual judicial acts.
Mainly original owners in the Czech republic responded to the very cautious
proposal of governmental law by bringing forward a more radical version signed as 3
T´s (authors Tyl, Tlustý, Tomášek).
The whole process of preparation and approval of these laws was one of the
most dramatic acts of the first democratically elected parliament in the years 1990 –
92.
Their aim was to relieve injustice committed by the socialist regime and to
create conditions for the original owners to start their private farming business on
their property or to take part in decision making in the transformed cooperatives.
Finally as a compromise the Act No 229/1991 Coll. amendment of ownership
relations to land and other farming property was adopted entered into force on
24/6/1991.
That day was the end of the period marked by superiority of utilization right
over ownership right. Rental relationship between the user (JFC, SP) and original
owners stated directly by the law was possible to terminate. This enabled private
farmers to establish farms because apart from land other agricultural property were
also restituted or compensation for this property was provided if it was impossible to
restitute it.
 The seized farming land and agricultural property had to be restituted to
original owners in accordance with the provision of the law, which relate to
restitution.
The Act No 330/1991 Coll.in Land Adjustments, Settlement of Ownership of
Land, Land Offices, Land Fund and Land Communities adopted by the Slovak
National Council which regulated execution of changes in land adjustment in
connection with restitution of land and the process of creation integrated parcels in the
cadastral area was closely linked to that land law.
The Federal Parliament also approved of the so-called law of transformation
No 42/1992 Coll. On Regulation of Property Relations and on Settlement of Property
in cooperatives which had to create a basis for transformation of socialist cooperatives
of the Stalin type into standard share holder cooperatives of real owners. It enabled
original owners to participate in preparation and approval of the whole transformation
process.
This law had to enable those original owners of land and agricultural property
who had not decided to run their private business to participate in decision making in
new cooperatives or other business enterprises.
All these acts together with other laws on restitution and laws on small-scale
and large-scale privatisation lawfully abolished “socialist ownership” and socialist
irresponsibility. They created conditions for recovery and renewal of private
ownership of the means of production as the inevitable basis of free entrepreneurship
and prosperity of the country.
In 1993 when I reverted to my profession of a wine grower I could verify
myself in practise how these laws were applied. I provided professional, technical and
advisory services for implementing new progressing technologies in processing of
grapes mainly for new established family companies and retransformed cooperatives.
Moreover together with the members of my family I started cultivating my
own vineyards and established a small family company producing high quality
vintage wines and sparkling wines produced by classical champagne technology.
Wine tourism as a specific type of rural tourism constitutes an essential part of
our marketing strategy and plays an important role in sales of wine.
The first significant milestone in implementation of the acts adopted in the
years 1990-92 in the Federal Parliament of the CSFR was the split of the CSFR in
1993 into two independent states with two differently oriented political ruling parties.
 While in the Czech republic they continued in the reformatory process,
Slovakia saw a move back. It affected legislature by limiting the rights of original
owners of land and property shares in the retransformed cooperatives and in the
executive by directing state subsidies to the former big socialist enterprises with the
minimum support of newly established small and medium farms of the family type.
As a result of that, the transformation of cooperatives was suspended on its
half way and there were not enough newly established agricultural enterprises to
promote necessary effective competition.

Similarly they failed to interconnect the basic industry with food processing
industry what had a negative impact on agricultural basic industry.
The second significant milestone was entry of Slovakia into the European
Union as a full member. From the point of view of vinedresser and wine grower we
have become part of a huge market but at the same time we have also adopted a whole
number of restrictive provisions, decrees and regulations and related to them sanctions
that are most difficult for a ordinary person to cope with.
The system of subsidizing is also adjusted for big enterprises, so that newly
established small enterprises have a minimum chance to succeed. The whole process
of gaining subsidies from the structural funds of EU is very slow, time consuming,
administratively demanding with uncertain result. Therefore the majority of small
family enterprises have not even started to consider applying for them.
Moreover, in spite of more than 15 years since the beginning of the restitution
process due to complicated process of land adjustment, most original vineyards
owners acquired their land parcels back only recently and many are still waiting.
Based on the experience we had with communism we are very sensitive about
quotas of maximum vineyards areas of 22.300 ha determined by Brussels that must
not be exceeded.
In my opinion it means an unacceptable restriction of execution of ownership
rights, which in connection with the contents my contribution evokes rightful concern
and makes us keep an especially cautious and watchful eye on it.

Ján Hacaj – wine grower

Member of Federal parliament of ÈSFR
in the years 1990-92