# C_2016136EN.01001601.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 January 2016 — ‘SEGRO’ Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala

(Case C-52/16)

(2016/C 136/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘SEGRO’ Kft.

Applicant:

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which — without considering other criteria — lays down the obligation to cancel the registration of the rights of usufruct and rights of use burdening agricultural land, which have been registered in the name of companies or natural persons who are not close relatives of the proprietor of the land, without at the same time prescribing, in favour of the proprietors of the extinguished rights of usufruct and of use, compensation for the financial losses which, while it cannot be claimed in the context of the settlement of accounts between the parties, does arise from valid contracts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which — without considering other criteria — lays down the obligation to cancel the registration of the rights of usufruct and rights of use burdening agricultural land, which have been registered in the name of companies or natural persons who are not close relatives of the proprietor of the land, without at the same time prescribing, in favour of the proprietors of the extinguished rights of usufruct and of use, compensation for the financial losses which, while it cannot be claimed in the context of the settlement of accounts between the parties, does arise from valid contracts?

| 2. | Must Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation which — without considering other criteria — lays down the obligation to cancel the registration of the rights of usufruct and of use burdening agricultural land, which have been registered, pursuant to contracts concluded before 30 April 2014, in the name of companies or natural persons who are not close relatives of the proprietor of the land, and at the same time prescribes, in favour of the proprietors of the extinguished rights of usufruct and of use, compensation for the financial losses which, while it cannot be claimed in the context of the settlement of accounts between the parties, does arise from valid contracts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation which — without considering other criteria — lays down the obligation to cancel the registration of the rights of usufruct and of use burdening agricultural land, which have been registered, pursuant to contracts concluded before 30 April 2014, in the name of companies or natural persons who are not close relatives of the proprietor of the land, and at the same time prescribes, in favour of the proprietors of the extinguished rights of usufruct and of use, compensation for the financial losses which, while it cannot be claimed in the context of the settlement of accounts between the parties, does arise from valid contracts?

---