Report from the Commission to the Council - Review of the transitional measures for the acquisition of agricultural real estate set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty
Date: 2008-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, acquisition of property, agricultural land, free movement of capital, right of establishment

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 16.7.2008 
COM(2008) 461 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

Review of the transitional measures for the acquisition of agricultural real estate set out 
in the 2003 Accession Treaty  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

Review of the transitional measures for the acquisition of agricultural real estate set out 
in the 2003 Accession Treaty  

The  Commission  is  presenting  this  report  to  the  Council  in  accordance  with  the  Act 
concerning  the  conditions  of  accession  of  the  Czech  Republic,  the  Republic  of  Estonia,  the 
Republic  of  Cyprus,  the  Republic  of  Latvia,  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  the  Republic  of 
Hungary,  the  Republic  of  Malta,  the  Republic  of  Poland,  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  and  the 
Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded 
(the Act on Accession of 2003). In seven out of ten new Member States, the Act established 
transitional periods for the purchase of agricultural land by foreigners, but also stipulated that 
“a general review of these transitional measures shall be held in the third year following the 
date of accession. To this effect, the Commission shall submit a report to the Council.” 

The Commission report of these transitional measures and their impact has been preceded by 
a study of the situation in the agricultural sector in the countries concerned, carried out for the 
Commission by a consultant1. 

1. 

Legal basis for the Commission report 

On the basis of the Act on Accession of 2003 the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia (the seven new Member States, referred to 
hereafter as NMS7) were each granted a transitional period for maintaining existing 
legislation  restricting  the  acquisition  of  agricultural  land  and  forest2,  by 
derogation from the freedom of capital movements enshrined in Article 56 of the EC 
Treaty.  By  virtue  of  Article  24  of  the  Act,  these  transitional  measures  are  listed  in 
Annexes  V,  VI,  VIII,  IX,  X,  XII,  and  XIV  respectively.  The  chapters  on  the  free 
movement  of  capital  in  those  Annexes  stipulate  that  “a  general  review  of  these 
transitional measures shall be held in the third year following the date of accession. 
To  this  effect,  the  Commission  shall  submit  a  report  to  the  Council.  The  Council 
may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, decide to shorten or 
terminate the transitional period […].” 

2. 

The transitional arrangements 

Free  movement  of  capital  is  one  of  the  fundamental  freedoms  guaranteed  by 
Community law. It includes investments in real estate3, notwithstanding transitional 
periods that have been established for the purchase of agricultural land by foreigners 
in seven new Member States. The main reason underlying the request and subsequent 
granting of those measures appears to be a need to safeguard the socio-economic 

1 

2 

3 

the 

States 

Acquisition 

Centre  for  European  Policy  Studies,  “Review  of  the  Transitional  Restrictions  Maintained  by  New 
Member 
estate” 
on 
(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/capital/reports). 
The  scope  of  the  study  is  limited  to  the  acquisition  of  agricultural  land  and  forest.  With  respect  to 
secondary residence the transitional measures of 5 years granted to Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary 
and Poland are not subject to review. 
See nomenclature of capital movements set out in Annex I to Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 
1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5). Although this Directive 
was repealed by the Maastricht Treaty, the nomenclature is recognised by the European Court of Justice 
as having indicative value. 

Agricultural 

Real 

of 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
conditions for agricultural activities in the wake of the introduction of the single 
market and the transition to the Common Agricultural Policy in the NMS7. In 
particular  the  measures  were  to  meet  concerns  raised  about  the  possibility  of  the 
transitional impact on the agricultural sector due to initial large differences in 
land  prices  and  income  compared  with  the  rest  of  the  EU.  The  temporary 
derogations were also designed to ease the  process  of privatisation and  restitution 
of  agricultural  land  to  farmers  in  some  countries.  The  time  limits  for  those 
restrictions were set with a view to limiting the negative impact on development of 
the agricultural sector in the NMS7 resulting from prolonged restrictions on foreign 
investment  in  the  sector,  which  might,  it  was  thought,  hold  back  productivity  and 
competitiveness for years to come. The transitional period is 12 years for Poland and 
seven for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia.  

3. 

Objectives of the report 

The Commission’s objective was to review the transitional measures and their effects 
in  order  to  report  on  the  potential  for  moving  forward  the  end  date  of  the 
transitional  measures.  Given  the  reasons  behind  the  temporary  derogations,  the 
Commission set out to investigate whether the initial concerns had been mitigated 
by subsequent developments in the NMS7 sufficiently to allow the derogation to 
be  terminated  ahead  of  deadline.  This  involved  a  survey  and  analysis  of 
developments  since  the  accession  negotiations  and  a  comparison  with  the  situation 
and developments in the “old” Member States.  

4. 

Methodological approach  

To  understand  the  current  and  future  impact  of  the  land  ownership  restrictions,  the 
study focused on two questions: the continuing relevance of NMS7 concerns about a 
possible  massive  takeover  of  land  by  foreigners;  and  the  extent  to  which  the 
restrictions on foreign ownership have affected the efficiency of land exchanges and 
land  allocations,  and  of  productivity  growth  in  NMS7.  The  survey  focused  on  the 
following  main  issues:  comparative  analysis  of  the  NMS7  transitional  restrictions; 
other  factors  affecting  the  markets  for  agricultural  land  and  land  transactions;  how 
agricultural land markets have developed over recent years, in particular in terms of 
land prices and rentals and their degree of convergence with EU15; and analysis of 
key  indicators  of  agricultural  performance  in  NMS7  compared  to  corresponding 
EU15 indicators.  

5. 

Overview of the situation after three years of EU membership.  

Legal  restrictions  in  NMS7  on  the  acquisition  of  agricultural  real  estate  by 
foreigners  

There  are  differences  in  the  way  the  NMS7  formulate  their  restrictions  on  the 
acquisition  of  agricultural  real  estate  by  foreigners.  This  applies  mainly  to  the  way 
‘foreigners’ are defined and to the conditions that foreigners have to fulfil in order to 
(exceptionally) obtain ownership of agricultural real estate (Annex I).  

As  to  the  definition  of  foreigners,  Hungary  is  the  only  country  not  accepting 
companies as owners of agricultural land (this is a non-discriminatory restriction). As 
to the conditions for (exceptional) acquisition rights, all NMS7 allow acquisition of 
agricultural  land  by  foreigners  who  have  been  farming  the  land  in  question,  as 
residents, for at least three years. The Czech Republic and Lithuania go even further, 
in  permitting  acquisition  of  agricultural  land  in  general  for  such  persons. 
Furthermore,  Estonia,  Lithuania  and  Slovakia  permit  acquisition  by  resident 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
companies that are majority-owned by foreigners. In addition, Estonia has a general 
exemption from the restriction for plots smaller than 10 ha and Poland for less than 1 
ha (unless in border regions). Finally, Hungary permits the acquisition of very small 
farmsteads  (6000  m2  or  less)  and  of  real  estate  for  farm  buildings  necessary  for 
intensive  livestock  breeding.  Most  importantly,  there  are  no  restrictions  on 
foreigners renting agricultural land in any of the NMS7. The differences illustrate 
that  a  complete  and  strict  ban  on  foreign  acquisitions  is  not  in  force  and  may 
therefore not be viewed as essential for achieving the transitional objectives.  

In  view  of  these  differences  between  the  NMS7,  it  is  interesting  to  note  to  what 
extent  foreigners  have  actually  been  able  to  buy  agricultural  land.  The  official 
statistics show quite a small share of foreigners in agricultural land ownership. For 
instance,  in  Hungary,  agricultural  land  transactions  involving  foreigners  represent 
less than 0.2% of total turnover in 2005 and 2006. Latvia has the highest percentage 
among  NMS7,  but  it  still  does  not  exceed  2%  for  the  same  reference  period. 
However,  national  land  experts  participating  in  the  survey  stressed  that  official 
statistics are likely to underestimate the actual foreign ownership of agricultural land 
because they do not take into account transactions by local intermediaries or the use 
of informal contracts that are not registered with the authorities.  

Ownership restrictions and land markets 

It is important to put the effect of foreign ownership restrictions within the broader 
perspective  of  the  way  land  markets  operate.  In  the  NMS7  context,  we  have  to 
remember  that  the  restrictions  do  not  affect  the  renting  of  agricultural  land. 
Other,  institutional,  factors  that  affect  land  transactions  include  constraints  and 
imperfections  in  capital  markets.  Transaction  costs  in  land  markets  and  imprecise 
property rights remain important and still have a significant impact on the allocation 
of  land.  Problems  with  uncertain  property  rights,  and  in  particular  unfinished 
privatisation,  affect  both  sales  and  rental  markets,  albeit  in  different  ways  and  to 
differing  degrees,  and  are  the  main  factor  impinging  on  the  development  of  land 
sales and rental prices.  

Foreign investments 

Foreign  investment  in  agriculture  would  have  important  long-term  impacts,  on  the 
provision of the necessary capital and know-how, on the functioning of land markets 
and on agricultural productivity. Of total FDI stock of some €170 billion (in 2004) in 
the NMS7, less than €1 billion has so far gone  to the agricultural sector. Even so, this 
is still an appreciable inflow of capital, bearing in mind the temporary restrictions in 
force. It underlines that “informal” foreign ownership of agricultural land is already 
in  excess  of  the  official  statistics,  but  also  points  to  investments  in  company-held 
farms  and  farm  rental.  To  the  direct  (horizontal)  impacts  of  these  –  still  limited  – 
investments  on  the  agricultural  sector  can  be  added  the  (possibly)  much  greater  of 
indirect  (vertical)  spill-over  impacts  of  investment  in  the  food  industry,  currently 
totalling some  €9 billion.  All of  this is help ing to ease the transition process in the 
agricultural sector.  

Influence of EU accession on NMS7 land markets 

EU  accession  has  also  had  an  indirect  effect  on  NMS7  rural  markets.  It  stimulated 
direct  investments  from  the  former  15  Member  States,  enhancing  the  effects 
mentioned  above.  By  stimulating  financial  sector  reforms  and  encouraging  the 
growing  presence  of  financial  institutions  from  EU15,  it  improved  access  to  credit 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
and  insurance,  alleviating  major  obstacles  to  more  efficient  land  markets.  Last  but 
not  least,  it  led  to  a  strong  increase  in  subsidies  for  NMS7  farmers  through  the 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). While NMS7 farms are eligible for only part of 
the subsidies available to EU15 farms, these subsidies still account for an important 
share  of  NMS7  farm  income.  They  are  improving  social  conditions  among  NMS7 
farmers and, together with improved access to credit, are giving a timely push to the 
incentives  and  possibilities  for  domestic  investors  to  acquire  agricultural  land,  and 
have already led to a strong increase in farm incomes, in land transactions and land 
prices.  

Changing land markets in NMS7  
The amount of land being rented is considerably higher4 than the amount being sold. 
In all NMS7 except Latvia and Poland more than half of agricultural lend is rented 
out, and this share is much higher than the average in the EU15. In contrast, Latvia 
and Poland range below the EU15 average.  

Notably,  the land  sales  market  has been strongly  affected in recent  years by  public 
sales  under  ongoing  land  privatisation  programmes.  This  is  particularly  the  case  in 
the  Czech  Republic,  but  also  in  Poland  and  Lithuania.  Privatisation  is  largely 
finished  in  Estonia  and  Latvia,  and  while  public  land  may  still  be  privatised  in  the 
future  in  Hungary  and  Slovakia,  it  is  currently  not  significantly  affecting  the  land 
sales market.  

The study used national  sources  to  obtain price statistics for  land  sales and  rentals. 
The Commission has also made use of EUROSTAT figures wherever available. Both 
the coverage and quality of the statistics are still under development, and results are 
subject to delays. As far as could be assessed, for the period 2000-2006, there was a 
significant  increase  in  land  sales  prices  (Annex  II),  measured  in  national  currency 
and  adjusted  for  inflation,  in  all  countries  but  the  Czech  Republic  and  Slovakia. 
Average  increases  ranged  from  around  10%  per  year  in  Poland  to  almost  60%  per 
year in Latvia. Importantly, a major part of the price rise occurred around the year of 
accession. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, prices actually declined after 2001. 
During  that  time  there  was,  in  the  Czech  Republic,  a  substantial  increase  in  public 
sales due to the privatisation of remaining state land.  

Prices  for  rentals  did  not  appear  to  rise  more  strongly  overall  than  land  prices, 
although diverging trends were noted in individual countries (Annex II). In Poland, 
rises early on in the period 2000-2006 were reversed towards the end. Nonetheless, 
rental prices rose by about 4% per year on average over the period. In other countries 
price increases proved more  stable,  ranging  from about  6% per year in Hungary to 
more than 20% per year in Lithuania. Still, in view of the fact that the rental market 
was  open  to  foreigners,  whereas  the  land  sales  market  was  largely  closed,  it  is 
notable that rental price increases remained relatively moderate overall.  

At  the  end  of  the  period,  price  levels  still  differed  markedly  between  the  NMS7 
(Annex III). Land sales prices, measured in common currency, were in 2005/2006 
lowest  in  Estonia  and  Lithuania,  not  exceeding  €800/hectare.   This  was  greatly 

4 

Renting  of  land  is  particularly  important  in  Slovakia,  Hungary,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia  and 
Lithuania, where the share of total agricultural land rented by farms is more than 50%. In Latvia it is 
24% and in Poland 22%. Between 2003 and 2005, the share of rented land in total land use declined 
slightly (1%-4%) in all countries except in Hungary, where it grew by 3%.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
surpassed  by  Poland  (€1927/ha 5)  and  by  the  Czech  and  Slovak  Republics  (with, 
respectively,  €1625/ha  and  €1017/ ha).  Latvia  showed  the  highest  price  level,  at 
€3591/ha.  However,  part  of  the  difference  in   price  levels  may  be  attributable  to 
statistical  bias,  since  the  basis  for  price  calculations  may  still  differ  between 
countries.  Again,  rental  prices  show  a  different  pattern.  Among  the  countries  that 
reported  figures,  Slovakia  had  the  lowest  level,  with  €18/ hectare  (in  2005)  and 
Hungary the highest (€67/ha 6). The Czech Republic, Lithuania and Poland held the 
middle ground with, respectively, €32, €33 and €41 per hectare

7.  

The patterns in price increases and price levels appear to underline that institutional 
factors  other  than  openness  to  foreign  presence  still  have  a  major  influence  on  the 
development of agricultural markets, such as constraints and imperfections in capital 
markets,  transaction  costs  in  land  markets  and  uncertain  property  rights,  as  well  as 
unfinished  privatisation,.  In  addition,  the  relatively  subdued  rental  price  increases 
appear to indicate that the risk of price hikes due to foreign presence may after all be 
manageable.  

As  a  result  of  price  increases,  the  gap  in  land  sales  prices  between  new  and  old 
Member States is gradually diminishing over time (Annex III), although the process 
is still far from being completed. A comparison with East Germany may be fruitful, 
since this region was subject to a transition phase much like that in the NMS7, but 
has,  in  contrast,  experienced  fully  open  borders  with  the  EU  since  the  early  90s. 
Compared to that region, Poland has reached about half its price level, whereas the 
Czech Republic, Hungary and the Slovak Republic lie somewhat lower. Only Latvia 
approaches  East  German  price  levels,  which  are  also  close  to  the  prices  in 
neighbouring  Sweden  (however,  see  earlier  remark  on  differences  in  calculations). 
Again,  considering  that  rental  markets  are  open  to  foreigners,  it  is  surprising  that 
convergence  in  rental  prices  is  not  generally  more  pronounced  than  that  in  land 
sales prices.  

Socio-economic structure of agricultural sector 

The  on-going  transformation  of  the  agricultural  sectors  in  the  NMS7,  leading  to 
increasingly efficient land use and production, is already showing remarkable results 
over  the  years,  above  all  measured  in  yields,  but  also  increasingly  in  labour 
productivity.  For  instance,  in  production  of  grains  (wheat),  the  Central  European 
NMS7 have reached about 60% (Poland) to 90% (Czech Republic) of EU15 yields. 
The Baltics are still lagging behind. In milk production, all NMS7 are already close 
to the average yield in the EU15.  

The  situation  is  not  quite  as  favourable  as  concerns  productivity.  For  instance, 
although  the  gap  in  labour  productivity  (gross  value  added  per  employee)  is 
decreasing over the years, large differences, between the NMS7 as well as vis-à-vis 
the EU15, still prevail.  

6. 

Conclusions 

5 

6 
7 

2005 agricultural land prices data from the study “Review of the Transitional Restrictions Maintained 
by  New  Member  States  on  the  Acquisition  of  Agricultural  Real  estate”.  2005  EUROSTAT  available 
data are only related to arable land € 2049/ha  
Data for 2006. In 2005: €63/ha. 
Data for 2006. In 2005: €32, €22 and €35 respectively. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
a) 
The  concerns  raised  during  the  NMS7  accession  negotiations,  in  particular 
concerns regarding the possible impact on the agricultural sector of large differences 
in  land  prices  and  income  with  the  rest  of  the  EU,  are  important,  but  should  not 
overshadow  fundamental  issues  which  are  still  holding  back  to  some  degree  the 
agricultural  structural  reform  needed  to  increase  productivity  and  income  in  the 
NMS7. The markets for agricultural land within the NMS7 are subject to institutional 
factors,  such  as  unfinished  privatisation,  uncertain  ownership  and  co-ownership 
conditions, and cumbersome and costly routines for land transfers.  

b)  A considerable foreign presence in the form of rented agricultural land in the 
NMS7 has been accommodated without any visible shock to the system, and could 
even  be  seen  as  helping  to  resolve  the  above  institutional  restraints.  It  may  have  a 
positive influence on agricultural reform, through introducing new technologies and 
providing much-needed capital for production. In addition, it may assist in loosening, 
in  some  NMS7,  the  grip  of  dominant  incumbent  owners  of  large  farms  on  small 
dispersed  landholders  with  uncertain  property  titles,  which  tends  to  hold  back  land 
prices  and  prevents  the  easing-in  of  land  ownership  redistribution  with  a  view  to 
creating larger contiguous properties. 

c) 
The Commission study has shown that the gap between NMS7 and the EU15 
in  terms  of  income  and  land  prices  has  declined  over  recent  years.  Still,  prices  are 
well off from complete convergence, though this would not be neither expected nor 
seen as a necessary condition for terminating the derogations. There is also a marked, 
but smaller, price divergence within the EU15, albeit at a higher average price level. 
Transaction  costs,  particularly  affecting  foreign  acquisitions,  may  also  play  an 
important, but smaller, role in the EU15. The development of rental prices hitherto in 
the NMS7 seems to indicate that, far from great price shocks, the gradual movement 
of  land  sales  prices  to  the  EU15  degree  of  convergence  could  continue  once  land 
sales markets within NMS7 were opened up to the same degree as within the EU15. 

d) 
Socio-economic conditions for agricultural production have improved, and this 
positive trend is expected to continue. However, a large gap in productivity remains 
between  NMS7  and  the  EU15.  This  underlines  a  need  for  the  NMS7  authorities  to 
continue  addressing  the  lingering  institutional  factors  delaying  the  process  of 
rationalising  land  use  and  agricultural  production.  Foreign  presence  in  the 
agricultural  sector,  at  present  through  rentals  and  eventually  also  through  land 
ownership is, and can be expected to be, conducive to this process.  

e)  Given  the  deadlines  established  in  the  Act  on  Accession  of  2003  for  the 
preparation  of  this  report  the  period  studied  is  necessarily  too  short8  to  have  more 
extensive  empirical  evidence  on  the  impact  of  accession  on  the  acquisition  of 
agricultural  land  by  foreigners.  Still,  the  Commission  study  has  shown  that  the 
NMS7 would be well advised to put the remainder of the derogation period to good 
use in fostering the development of the sector, so as to prepare for the inevitable end 
of  the  derogation  periods.  In  that  context,  NMS7  authorities  might  consider  a 
smaller,  intermediate  loosening  of  the  restrictions  on  foreign  ownership,  in  a  way 
which  would  be  beneficial  for  the  agricultural  reforms.  For  instance,  consideration 

8 

The statistics available at the date of the adoption of the report refer only to 2006 with relation to some 
Member States. The most comprehensive data on land prices for comparison purposes between “new” 
and “old” Member States are only available for 2004 and 2005. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
might be given to introducing the following small reforms, already partly in force in 
some NMS7:  

– 

– 

increase the minimum area of land that foreigners could buy without restrictions. For 
instance, a limit of 10 hectares could be considered, as in Estonia; and  

permit  foreigners  who  are  renting  agricultural  properties,  to  acquire  farm  buildings 
and the land on which they are built without restrictions.  

Commission’s response: 

Based on the situation in NMS7 in the mid-term review of transitional measures for the 
acquisition of agricultural land, the Commission does not conclude that the time limits 
for these measures be shortened.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I: Legal restrictions regarding the acquisition of agricultural land in the NMS7 

Can EU citizens buy 
agricultural land despite 
the restriction? 

Czech Republic 

Estonia 

Hungary 

Yes, 

Plots < 10 ha: 

Yes, 

Latvia 

Yes, 

if married with 
Hungarian 
partner 

if s/he has been 
staying and 
farming in the 
country for at 
least 3 years, 
the particular 
plot that s/he 
has been ren-
ting can be 
bought. 

• 

if s/he has been 
staying and 
farming in the 
country for at 
least 3 years, 
the particular 
plot that s/he 
has been ren-
ting can be 
bought; 

• 

if married with 
Latvian partner, 
but only as co-
owner 

• 

• 

if married with 
Czech partner 

if s/he has been 
staying and 
farming in the 
country for at 
least 3 years, 
then s/he can 
buy any parcel 
in the country. 

Yes.  

No additional 
conditions have to 
be fulfilled. 

• 

• 

Plots>10 ha: 

Yes  

• 

• 

if married with 
Estonian 
partner 

if s/he has been 
staying and 
farming in the 
country for at 
least 3 years, 
the particular 
plot that s/he 
has been ren-
ting can be 
bought. 

Can  a  legal  entity  buy 
agricultural land? 

Yes 

Can a legal entity that is 
registered in the county 
but owned by 
foreigners, buy 
agricultural land? 

Yes, if minority of 
shares is owned by 
foreigners 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes, if minority of 
shares is owned by 
foreigners 

Yes 

Yes 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Yes, 

• 

• 

if married with 
Lithuanian 
partner 

if s/he has been 
staying and 
farming in the 
country for at 
least 3 years, 
then s/he can 
buy any parcel 
in the country. 

Slovakia 

Yes 

• 

• 

if  married  with 
Slovakian 
partner 

if s/he has been 
staying 
and 
farming  in  the 
country  for  at 
least  3  years, 
particular 
the 
that  s/he 
plot 
has 
been 
renting  can  be 
bought. 

Yes 

Yes 

Plot <1 ha not 
located in border 
zones:  

Yes, 

• 

• 

if residing in 
Poland for at 
least five years  

if married to a 
Polish citizen  

•  Other plots: 

• 

• 

if married to a 
Polish citizen  

if s/he has been 
staying and 
farming in the 
country for at 
least 3 years, 
the particular 
plot that s/he 
has been ren-
ting can be 
bought. 

Yes 

Yes, if minority of 
shares is owned by 
foreigners 

EN 

9 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II:  Prices for agricultural land in the NMS7, 2000–2006 
Measured in national currency per hectare, in 2005 prices 

SALES 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004 

2005 

2006

Czech Republic (CZK) 

61134 

48976 

50501 

50601 

48279 

45118

Estonia (EEK) *) 

3850 

4985 

7255 

Latvia (Lats) 

370 

383 

733 

1602 

2346

Lithuania (LTL) 

1139 

1185 

1663 

1398 

1439 

1851 

2441

Hungary (1000HUF) *) 

174 

196 

[373] **)

Poland (PLN) ***) 

5476 

5649 

5375 

6088 

6776 

8244 

9171

Slovak Republic (SKK) 

50672 

47113 

45438 

41781 

38908 

37850 

36303

Rentals 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004 

2005 

2006

599 

716 

762 

788 

867 

960 

940

Czech  Republic  (CZK) 
*)  

Estonia (EEK) 

Latvia (Lats) 

Lithuania (LTL) 

35 

44 

47 

49 

60 

77 

110

Hungary (HUF) 

12837 

12780 

14851 

14871 

15720 

17101

Poland (PLN)*) 

132 

104 

101 

122 

200 

141 

164

Slovak Republic (SKK) 
*) 

368 

462 

479 

562 

684 

Sources: EUROSTAT, unless indicated otherwise. EUROSTAT data calculated in 2005 prices on the basis of 
EUROSTAT current prices. 

*) Collected from national sources, as used in “Review of the Transitional Restrictions Maintained by New 
Member States on the Acquisition of Agricultural Real estate”. 

**) 2006 figures from FADN, referring to arable land.  

***) Figures from EUROSTAT referring to arable land. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III:  Prices for agricultural land in the NMS7 and selected EU15, 2000-2006 
Measured in current euro per hectare 

SALES 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006

Czech Republic 

1556 

Estonia*) 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Hungary*) 

Poland***) 

Slovak Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

1403 

218 

294 

321 

1194 

895 

1415 

878 

1528 

1522 

1561 

297 

526 

390 

1308 

912 

546 

468 

1307 

888 

1031 

406 

676 

1465 

946 

1621 

464 

2301 

536 

 1625 

 3591 

 734 

742 

[1550] **) 

2049 

981 

2385 

 1017 

10330 

12211 

12920 

14669 

15995 

18787 

22791 

9081 

9427 

9465 

9184 

9233 

8692 

 8909 

West Germany*) 

16830 

17246 

16966 

16489 

16035 

East Germany*) 

France*) 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

3631 

4913 

3811 

5384 

4014 

5778 

3831 

6079 

3944 

6567 

35713 

37150 

40150 

34160 

31432 

30235 

31290 

1989 

1988 

2019 

2126 

2455 

3351 

3706 

Rentals 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006

Czech Republic*) 

15 

20 

24 

24 

27 

32 

32 

Estonia 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Hungary 

Poland*) 

Slovak Republic*) 

Denmark 

Germany 

West Germany*) 

East Germany*) 

France*) 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

9 

29 

328 

124 

405 

107 

12 

41 

26 

7 

346 

164 

225 

104 

123 

443 

104 

13 

45 

25 

9 

368 

124 

445 

108 

14 

53 

26 

10 

391 

174 

261 

116 

123 

445 

110 

17 

57 

43 

14 

399 

122 

447 

110 

33 

67 

41 

456 

22 

63 

35 

18 

397 

176 

462 

108 

466 

110 

Sources: EUROSTAT, unless indicated otherwise  

*) Collected from national sources, as used in the study “Review of the Transitional Restrictions Maintained by 
New Member States on the Acquisition of Agricultural Real estate” 

**) 2006 figures from FADN, referring to arable land.  

***) Figures from EUROSTAT referring to arable land. 

EN 

11 

   EN