Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:398
Date: 2026-05-13
Language of the case: Hungarian

Translation C-286/25 – 1 
Case C-286/25 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
15 April 2025 
Referring court: 
Győri Törvényszék (Hungary) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 April 2025 
Applicant: 
BRANDL Mezőgazdasági, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. 
Defendant: 
Agrárminisztérium 
  
[…] 
In a dispute concerning land transactions, between BRANDL Mezőgazdasági, 
Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. […], the applicant, and […] the 
Agrárminisztérium (Ministry of Agriculture, Hungary) […], the defendant, the 
Győri Törvényszék (Győr High Court, Hungary) […] makes the following 
order: 
The referring court […] stays the proceedings and, pursuant to Article 267 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, refers the following questions 
to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
‘Must Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and 
Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be 
interpreted as meaning that the legislation of a Member State which, following the 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 4. 2025 – CASE C-286/25 
 
2  
restoration of a right of usufruct over a plot of agricultural land, which was 
previously cancelled contrary to EU law, awards the usufructuary financial 
compensation that does not take into consideration the significant increase in the 
market value of the properties in respect of which the right of usufruct was 
cancelled, in the years for which the right was cancelled, is consistent with those 
articles? 
Does the legislation of a Member State which, following the restoration of a right 
of usufruct over a plot of agricultural land, which was previously cancelled 
contrary to EU law, awards the usufructuary financial compensation that does not 
take into consideration the significant increase in the market value of the 
properties in respect of which the right of usufruct was cancelled, in the years for 
which the right was cancelled, satisfy the concept of fair compensation contained 
in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in 
the judgment given in Case C-235/17? 
[…] [matters of national procedural law] 
Grounds 
1. Facts 
The applicant’s right of usufruct over the plots with geographical information 
numbers Enese 0159/3 and 0160 was deleted from the land register on 2 October 
2014, in accordance with Paragraph 108(1) of the mező- és erdőgazdasági földek 
forgalmáról szóló 2013. évi CXXII. törvénnyel összefüggő egyes 
rendelkezésekről és átmeneti szabályokról szóló 2013. évi CCXII. törvény (Law 
No CCXII of 2013 laying down various provisions and transitional measures 
concerning Law No CXXII of 2013 on transactions in agricultural and forestry 
land; ‘Law No CCXII of 2013’). 
In its judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct Over 
Agricultural Land) (C-235/17), the Court of Justice held that, by adopting 
Paragraph 108(1) of Law No CCXII of 2013 and thereby cancelling, by operation 
of law, the rights of usufruct over agricultural and forestry land located in 
Hungary that were held directly or indirectly by nationals of other Member States, 
Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU in conjunction 
with Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
In its judgment of 10 March 2022, ‘Grossmania’ (C-177/20), [the Court ruled] 
that EU law, in particular Article 4(3) TEU and Article 267 TFEU, must be 
interpreted as meaning that a national court hearing an action against a decision 
rejecting a request for reinstatement of rights of usufruct which have been 
extinguished by operation of law and deleted from the land register pursuant to 
national legislation which is incompatible with Article 63 TFEU, as interpreted by 
the Court in a preliminary ruling, is required to disapply that legislation and, in the 
absence of objective and legitimate obstacles, in particular those of a legal nature, 
to order the competent administrative authority to reinstate the rights of usufruct, 
BRANDL 
 
3 
even though the deletion of those rights has not been contested before the courts 
within the legal time limits and has consequently become final in accordance with 
national law. 
On 1 January 2022, before the judgment in Case C-177/20 was given, the 
Hungarian legislation was amended to the effect that any natural or legal person 
whose right of usufruct had been deleted from the land register pursuant to 
Paragraph 108(1) of Law No CCXII of 2013, in force on 30 April 2014, could 
request the reinstatement of the deleted right of usufruct and compensation. The 
basis for the compensation consists in the annual value of the deleted right of 
usufruct. The annual value equates to 1/20 of the market value, at the time of the 
deletion of the right of usufruct, of the property over which the right of usufruct 
has been created. Where the right of usufruct is reinstated, the amount of the 
compensation is calculated by multiplying the annual value by the number of 
years elapsed between deletion and reinstatement. 
At the request of the applicant, the cadaster office, by means of decisions […], 
reinstated the deleted rights of usufruct. 
In the compensation proceedings relating to the deleted right of usufruct, the 
Nemzeti Földügyi Központ (National Land Centre, Hungary) (‘the legal 
predecessor of the defendant’) awarded the applicant, by means of its decision 
[…], compensation of HUF 30 810 000 in respect of the plot with geographical 
information number Enese 0160. By means of its decision […], the legal 
predecessor of the defendant, in the compensation proceedings relating to the 
deleted right of usufruct, awarded the applicant compensation of HUF 10 940 000 
in respect of the plot with geographical information number Enese 0159/3. In 
accordance with Paragraph 108/K(4) of Law No CCXII of 2013, the legal 
predecessor of the defendant calculated the amount of the compensation on the 
basis of the annual value of the right of usufruct, multiplying it by the number of 
years elapsed between deletion and reinstatement. 
In its statement of claim, the applicant maintained, in relation to the amount of the 
compensation, that the legal predecessor of the defendant had not taken into 
consideration the rents stipulated in the lease agreements that remained in force 
after the deletion of the right of usufruct, which were equivalent to lost profits. 
Nor had the legal predecessor of the defendant taken into consideration the fact 
that, prior to the deletion [of the right], the applicant farmed the land itself, 
generating a net profit of HUF 130 707 per hectare and year. The annual amount 
of compensation per hectare of arable land is HUF 68 722, in respect of the plot 
with geographical information number Enese 0160, and HUF 69 984, in respect of 
the plot with geographical information number Enese 0159/3. 
The legal predecessor of the defendant, in its defence, maintained that, in its 
decisions, it was only able to take into consideration the provisions of Law No 
CCXII of 2013, since those proceedings did not concern damages, but rather 
compensation. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 4. 2025 – CASE C-286/25 
 
4  
In his opinion, the expert witness appointed in the administrative proceedings 
calculated, on the one hand, the amount of compensation to which the applicant 
was entitled in accordance with the current legislative provisions and, on the 
other, the amount of compensation that would apply if the current legislative 
provisions allowed the increase in the market value recorded in the years for 
which the right was cancelled to be taken into consideration. 
On the basis of the current legislative provisions, the expert calculated a 
compensation amount of HUF 7 144 163 in respect of the plot with geographical 
information number Enese 0159/3 and an amount of HUF 21 615 556 in respect of 
the plot with geographical information number Enese 0160. The calculation was 
done by multiplying a twentieth of the 2014 market values determined by the 
expert (HUF 15 805 000 in the case of the plot with geographical information 
number Enese 0159/3 and HUF 47 820 000 in the case of the plot with 
geographical information number Enese 0160) by the number of years elapsed 
between deletion and reinstatement (9.040383299 for both plots). Thus, the 
amount calculated by the expert on the basis of the current legislative provisions 
was, in both cases, less than the amount calculated by the legal predecessor of the 
defendant. 
With regard to both plots, the expert considered the market value of the arable 
land to have increased following the deletion of the rights of usufruct. Regarding 
the plot with geographical information number Enese 0159/3, the market value 
had been HUF 15 805 000 in 2014, HUF 19 105 000 in 2015, HUF 27 440 000 in 
2016, HUF 24 660 000 in 2017, HUF 25 360 000 in 2018, HUF 30 570 000 in 
2019, HUF 36 300 000 in 2020, HUF 44 990 000 in 2021, HUF 49 850 000 in 
2022 and HUF 57 840 000 in 2023. 
Regarding the plot with geographical information number Enese 0160, the market 
value had been HUF 47 820 000 in 2014, HUF 58 280 000 in 2015, 
HUF 81 700 000 in 2016, HUF 73 230 000 in 2017, HUF 74 720 000 in 2018, 
HUF 90 660 000 in 2019, HUF 109 100 000 in 2020, HUF 136 990 000 in 2021, 
HUF 146 950 000 in 2022 and HUF 167 380 000 in 2023. 
Taking the above figures into account, the amount of compensation to which the 
applicant would be entitled (calculated on the basis of a twentieth of the market 
values for each year) would be HUF 16 596 000, in respect of the plot with 
geographical information number Enese 0159/3, and HUF 49 341 500, in respect 
of the plot with geographical information number Enese 0160. 
2. European Union law 
Article 63(1) TFEU: 
‘Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on 
the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and 
third countries shall be prohibited.’ 
BRANDL 
 
5 
Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the 
Charter’): 
‘Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully 
acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in 
the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, 
subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of 
property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.’ 
3. National law 
Paragraph 108/B(1) of Law No CCXII of 2013: 
‘Any natural or legal person whose right of usufruct has been deleted from the 
land register by virtue of the provisions of Paragraph 108(1), in force on 30 April 
2014 (‘the holder of a deleted usufruct’), or a successor in title to that person, may 
apply under this subsection to have the deleted usufruct right reinstated in the land 
register and for any compensation to which that person is entitled under this 
subsection.’ 
Paragraph 108/K(1) of Law No CCXII of 2013: 
‘The basis for the compensation consists in the annual value of the deleted right of 
usufruct. The annual value equates to 1/20 of the market value, at the time of the 
deletion of the right of usufruct, of the property over which the right of usufruct 
had previously been created.’ 
Paragraph 108/K(4) of Law No CCXII of 2013: 
‘Where the right of usufruct is reinstated, the amount of the compensation shall be 
the result of multiplying the annual value by the number of years elapsed between 
deletion and reinstatement.’ 
Paragraph 108/K(5) of Law No CCXII of 2013: 
‘For fractions of a year, when calculating the amount of the compensation, the 
proportional part of the annual value shall be taken into consideration.’ 
4. Reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
4.1. Background: judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union 
In its judgment of 6 March 2018, SEGRO (C-52/16 and C-113/16, 
EU:C:2018:157; ‘the judgment in SEGRO’), the Court held that Article 63 TFEU 
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the 
main proceedings, under which rights of usufruct which have previously been 
created over agricultural land and the holders of which do not have the status of 
close relation of the owner of that land are extinguished by operation of law and 
are, consequently, deleted from the [land register]. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 4. 2025 – CASE C-286/25 
 
6  
In the judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct Over 
Agricultural Land) (C-235/17), the Court found that, by adopting [the provision 
contested in that case] and thereby cancelling, by operation of law, the rights of 
usufruct over agricultural land located in Hungary that [were] held, directly or 
indirectly, by nationals of other Member States, Hungary had failed to fulfil its 
obligations under Article 63 TFEU in conjunction with Article 17 of the Charter. 
In the same judgment, the Court held that a rule of national law depriving a person 
of his or her property must provide, in a clear and precise manner, for that loss to 
give rise to an entitlement to compensation and for the conditions of that 
compensation. It cannot but be noted that the contested provision contains no 
terms ensuring that the usufructuaries who have been deprived of their property 
receive compensation or laying down the arrangements for such compensation 
(paragraph 126). In that regard, the possibility of referring to the general rules of 
civil law, which Hungary mentions in its defence, cannot satisfy the requirements 
arising under Article 17(1) of the Charter. Moreover, even if it were legally 
possible for a Member State, under that provision, to make private parties 
responsible for the payment of compensation for deprivations of property which 
have been caused exclusively by the State itself, a reference of that kind to civil 
law would in the present case place on the usufructuaries the burden of having to 
pursue the recovery, by means of procedures that may prove lengthy and 
expensive, of any compensation which might be payable to them by the 
landowner. Such rules of civil law do not make it possible to determine easily and 
in a sufficiently precise and foreseeable manner whether compensation will in fact 
be able to be obtained at the end of such procedures nor do they disclose the 
nature of any compensation there may be (paragraph 127). It is apparent from the 
case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that that court considers that, 
when the possessions of an individual are expropriated, a procedure must exist 
which ensures an overall assessment of the consequences of expropriation, 
namely, an award of compensation that is related to the value of the expropriated 
possession, a determination of the recipients of compensation and any other issues 
relating to the expropriation (ECtHR, 9 October 2003, Biozokat A.E. v. Greece, 
CE:ECHR:2003:1009JUD006158200, § 29) (paragraph 128). 
Also in that judgment, the Court of Justice held that the deprivation of property 
effected by the contested provision cannot be justified on the ground that it is in 
the public interest; nor are any arrangements in place whereby fair compensation 
is paid in good time. Accordingly, that provision infringes the right to property 
guaranteed by Article 17(1) of the Charter (paragraph 129). 
In judgment 25/2015, of 21 July, the Alkotmánybíróság (Constitutional Court, 
Hungary) held that a situation had been created which was contrary to the 
Hungarian Fundamental Law because, as regards rights of usufruct and rights of 
use extinguished pursuant to Paragraph 108 of Law No CCXII of 2013, the 
legislature had not adopted legislation allowing compensation to be awarded for 
exceptional pecuniary damage which cannot be claimed in the context of a 
settlement between the parties to the contract but which relates to valid contracts. 
BRANDL 
 
7 
In its judgment of 10 March 2022, ‘Grossmania’ (C-177/20), the Court of Justice 
held that, under Article 260(1) TFEU, if the Court finds that a Member State has 
failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaties, that Member State is required to 
take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court which has 
the force of res judicata as regards the matters of fact and law actually or 
necessarily settled by the judicial decision in question (see, to that effect, 
judgment of 24 January 2013, Commission v Spain, C-529/09, EU:C:2013:31, 
paragraphs 65 and 66) (paragraph 35). 
In its judgment of 12 December 2024, Nemzeti Földügyi Központ (C-419/23), the 
Court observed, in relation to compliance with the principle of proportionality, 
that national legislation is appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective 
relied on only if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain it in a consistent and 
systematic manner (judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct 
over agricultural land), C-235/17, EU:C:2019:432, paragraph 61) (paragraph 64). 
4.2. Hungarian legislation applicable to determining the compensation to which 
the applicant is entitled. 
The heading of Paragraph 20/F of Law No CCXII of 2013, which entered into 
force on 1 January 2022, is as follows: specific rules to implement the judgment 
of the Court of Justice of the European Union given in Case C-235/17, 
Commission v Hungary, brought as a result of the cancellation, by operation of 
law, of rights of usufruct over agricultural land. 
Thus, on the above basis, the Hungarian legislature approved the legal provisions 
to implement the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 May 2019, Commission v 
Hungary (Usufruct over agricultural land) (C-235/17), which entered into force 
on 1 January 2022. That view is confirmed by the preamble to that law, according 
to which ‘the judgment of the Court of Justice given in Case C-235/17 ordered the 
restoration of the rights of usufruct extinguished by the mező- és erdőgazdasági 
földek forgalmáról szóló 2013. évi CXXII. törvényel (Law No CXXII of 2013 on 
transactions in agricultural and forestry land). In order to implement that 
judgment, it is necessary – in consultation with the European Commission – for 
the law to regulate the following process, consisting of two stages and involving 
three administrative procedures: a) an administrative procedure aimed at the 
reinstatement of the right of usufruct in the relevant register, which entails, on the 
one hand, an examination of whether such reinstatement is possible and, on the 
other, in the event of a favourable decision in that regard, the reinstatement of the 
right in the land register; b) an administrative procedure to determine 
compensation, in which the amount of compensation to be paid to the 
usufructuary by the State would be set. 
Of the three administrative procedures mentioned above, the first two are not 
relevant to the present case, since the applicant’s deleted rights of usufruct were 
reinstated in the land register. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 4. 2025 – CASE C-286/25 
 
8  
The administrative procedure to determine compensation may be considered 
relevant for the purposes of the present case. 
The legislature took the annual value of the deleted right of usufruct as the basis 
for the compensation. The annual value of the right of usufruct equates to 1/20 of 
the market value of the property at the time of the deletion of the right of usufruct. 
A legislative provision under which the annual value of a right of usufruct equates 
to 1/20 of the market value of the property is consistent with Paragraph 72(1) of 
the az illetékekről szóló 1990. évi XCIII. törvény (Law No XCIII of 1990 on taxes 
and duties), according to which the annual value of property rights, such as the 
right of usufruct, is a twentieth of the market value of the property. 
Paragraph 108/K(4) of Law No CCXII of 2013 regulates the situation in which, in 
addition to the deleted right of usufruct being reinstated, the holder [of that right] 
is awarded compensation for the period in which the holder’s rights over the 
property could not be exercised as a consequence of the deletion of the right of 
usufruct. According to that law, in such a situation, the annual value of the right of 
usufruct must by multiplied by the number of years elapsed between the deletion 
and the reinstatement of the right (in the case of fractions of a year, the 
proportional part of the annual value is to be taken into consideration). 
4.3. Conclusions which may be drawn from the judgments of the Court of Justice 
mentioned in section 4.1 
In the judgment in SEGRO, the Court held that Paragraph 108(1) of Law No 
CCXII of 2013 was contrary to Article 63 TFEU. 
In the judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct over 
agricultural land) (C-235/17), given in the context of infringement proceedings, 
the Court held that, by adopting Paragraph 108(1) of Law No CCXII of 2013, 
Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU in conjunction 
with Article 17 of the Charter. According to the Court, the deprivation of property 
could not be justified on the ground that it was in the public interest; nor were any 
arrangements in place whereby fair compensation is paid in good time. 
Accordingly, that provision infringes the right to property guaranteed by 
Article 17(1) of the Charter. 
Under Article 260(1) TFEU, if the Court finds that a Member State has failed to 
fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, that Member State is required to take the 
necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court. 
According to the judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct 
over agricultural land) (C-235/17), the Member State should, in relation to the 
deletion of the rights of usufruct, have established a procedure to ensure fair 
compensation. 
BRANDL 
 
9 
In relation to Paragraph 108(1) of Law No CCXII of 2013, the Constitutional 
Court also held that, regarding deleted rights of usufruct, the legislature should 
have put in place legislation to allow the recovery of damages on the basis of valid 
contracts. 
In relation to the judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct 
over agricultural land) (C-235/17), given in the context of infringement 
proceedings, and also Paragraph 108/K of Law No CCXII of 2013, the question 
arises of whether the legislation of the Member State has established a procedure 
to ensure fair compensation. 
4.4. Absence of fair compensation 
In the context of the deprivation of property, the Court of Justice has not yet ruled 
on when a measure taken by a Member State is covered by the concept of fair 
compensation and satisfies the requirements for that. 
According to the referring court, fair compensation must include financial 
compensation for all of the damage suffered by the holder of the right as a 
consequence of a measure taken by a Member State. 
In the present case, the measure taken by the Member State and which caused the 
damage consisted in the cancellation, by operation of law, of the applicant’s right 
of usufruct. While the right of usufruct was in place, the applicant could use and 
enjoy the properties at issue in the dispute and receive the profits generated by 
them. In view of the above, the profits lost as a result of the cancellation of the 
right of usufruct must be quantified: the [relevant] costs borne by the applicant 
must be subtracted from the income which the use of the properties at issue in the 
dispute generates for that party annually. 
The fact that the market value of a property affects the value of that asset and the 
value of the right of usufruct created over it is not disputed. The legislation of the 
Member State concerning taxes and duties also uses the market value of the 
property to determine the value of the right of usufruct. 
With regard to compensation for the deleted and subsequently reinstated right of 
usufruct, the Hungarian legislation which entered into force as a result of the 
judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary 
(Usufruct over agricultural land) (C-235/17), and, more particularly, the judgment 
of 10 March 2022, ‘Grossmania’ (C-177/20), is also based on the market value of 
the property. The legislation considers the annual value of the right of usufruct to 
be a twentieth of the market value of that right when it was deleted, multiplied by 
the number of years for which it was cancelled. 
However, the Hungarian legislation does not take into consideration the fact that, 
in the years for which the right was cancelled, the market value of the property 
and, therefore, necessarily, the value of the right of usufruct may or may not have 
increased. According to the referring court, in order to be able to talk about fair 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 4. 2025 – CASE C-286/25 
 
10  
compensation, the increase in the market value for each year for which the right 
was cancelled should be taken into account. That method of calculation is 
sufficiently objective and easy to apply, so as to be able, for the purposes of 
compensation, to take into consideration the possible increase in the market value 
occurring in the years for which the right was cancelled. 
In the present case, in the years for which the right was cancelled, the increase in 
the market value of the properties in dispute may be regarded as exceptional, since 
that value increased more than threefold over that period. However, in accordance 
with Hungarian legislation, that threefold difference in value cannot be taken into 
consideration in determining the compensation, as Law No CCXII of 2013 solely 
bases [that determination] on the market value for the year in which the deletion 
occurred. 
Thus, in accordance with the Hungarian legislation currently in force, fair 
compensation within the meaning of Article 17 of the Charter does not and cannot 
exist. 
In its judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct over 
agricultural land) (C-235/17), the Court of Justice held that, by adopting 
Paragraph 108(1) of Law No CCXII of 2013, Hungary had failed to fulfil its 
obligations under Article 63 TFEU in conjunction with Article 17 of the Charter. 
Although the Hungarian State, on 1 January 2022, regulated the reinstatement of 
the deleted rights of usufruct and the compensation to be paid to the usufructuaries 
by the State, the legislative provision under which the State is able to claim from 
the owners [of the relevant properties], by way of compensation, the 
compensation amounts which the State has to pay to the usufructaries did not 
enter into force until 1 January 2024. While the amendment is not applicable to 
the present dispute, it does highlight the fact that, in that regard as well, the State 
did not comply with the judgment given in the infringement proceedings. 
4.5. Free movement of capital and Article 17 of the Charter 
With regard to the free movement of capital, the referring court observes, in the 
first place, that the director of the applicant is not a Hungarian national and that 
the administrative proceedings concern the lawfulness of the compensation paid in 
relation to applicant’s deleted rights of usufruct. 
According to point II.A of Annex I to Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 
1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty, the nomenclature of 
capital movements includes investments in real estate on national territory by non-
residents. 
In the present case, the deletion of the right of usufruct in 2014 terminated the 
applicant’s investment in real estate in Hungary. Following the reinstatement of 
the applicant’s right of usufruct in 2022, the legal predecessor of the defendant 
decided on the amount of compensation to which the applicant was entitled. 
BRANDL 
 
11 
However, in relation to the compensation amount, the national legislation does not 
take into consideration the increase in the market value of the properties occurring 
in the years for which the right was cancelled. Consequently, the applicant is not 
fully compensated for the lost profits from its terminated real estate investment. 
Thus, the legislation of the Member State clearly infringes the free movement of 
capital. 
A measure which restricts the free movement of capital is permissible only if it is 
justified by the reasons referred to in Article 65 TFEU or by overriding reasons in 
the public interest and observes the principle of proportionality, which requires the 
measure to be appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the objective legitimately 
pursued and not to go beyond what is necessary in order for it to be attained. 
In view of the fact that the judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary 
(Usufruct over agricultural land) (C-235/17), given in the context of infringement 
proceedings, stipulated that fair compensation should be awarded to the holders of 
deleted rights of usufruct, the objective of the Member State should have been to 
ensure, by means of legislative provisions, such fair compensation for the holders 
of rights of usufruct. That constitutes an overriding reason in the public interest 
(see the judgment in Case C-419/23, paragraphs 59 to 62). 
In the view of the referring court, there is no reason to justify the fact that, instead 
of the fair compensation required by the judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v 
Hungary (Usufruct over agricultural land) (C-235/17), the Member State has 
established a system of compensation which does not, in relation to the properties 
to which the deletion of the right of usufruct applies, take into consideration the 
increase in the market value occurring in the years for which the right was 
cancelled. 
The fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter are applicable in all situations 
governed by EU law and must, therefore, be complied with where national 
legislation falls within the scope of EU law (judgment in Case C-235/17, 
paragraph 63). That is inter alia the case where national legislation is such as to 
obstruct one or more of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty 
(judgment in Case C-235/17, paragraph 64). 
Since the legislation of the Member State applicable to these administrative 
proceedings is such as to obstruct the fundamental freedom guaranteed by 
Article 63 TFEU, Article 17(1) of the Charter is also applicable. 
The applicability of the Charter is also based on the fact that, with the content of 
Paragraph 108/K(1) and (4) of Law No CCXII of 2013, the legislature of the 
Member State did not respect the ruling contained in the judgment in Case 
C-235/17, since, as detailed above, it did not ensure fair compensation for the 
holders of rights of usufruct affected by the deletion. Accordingly, when 
implementing the judgment in Case C-235/17, the legislature of the Member State 
did not comply with the EU law expressed in. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 4. 2025 – CASE C-286/25 
 
12  
[…] 
[…] [matters of national procedural law] 
[…] 
Győr, 3 April 2025 
[…] 
[signatures]