Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship Between Agricultural Law and Environmental Law in Hungary

  • Chapter
Law and Agroecology

  • 1225 Accesses

Abstract

The present paper provides a review on the relationship between agricultural law and environmental law from the point of view of a Hungarian lawyer. Taking this relationship into consideration, the Hungarian legal system applies similar solutions and provides legal institutions to the other Member States of the European Union (especially to Germany and Austria) in order to arrange differences between the interests of agriculture and environmental protection. The cause of this similarity primarily rests on the significant role of the European Union (EU) to regulate the relationship of these two laws. However, there are some challenging features of the Hungarian law that can be regarded as specialities, such as the specific theoretical approaches of the Hungarian lawyers or the constitutional basis of agri-environmental law (e.g., on GMOs) in the Hungarian constitution (the so-called Fundamental Law). Finally, this paper is a commitment to agroecology, as a scientific discipline and philosophical paradigm, which may play a remarkable role in bridging agriculture and environmental protection.

This research was supported by the European Union and the State of Hungary, cofinanced by the European Social Fund in the framework of TÁMOP 4.2.4. A/2-11-1-2012-0001 “National Excellence Program.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bobvos and Hegyes (2011), pp. 9–12; Csák (2006), pp. 75–90 and 83–87; Fodor (2005), pp. 17–54; Kurucz (2007), pp. 41–86; Novotni (1991), pp. 275–280; Olajos (2008b), pp. 14–18; Prugberger (1999), pp. 3–22; Tanka (2007), pp. 371–394 and 391–394; Veres (1993), pp. 519–528.

  2. 2.

    Bándi (2011), pp. 11–26; Csák (2008), pp. 9–13; Fodor (2012c), pp. 9–31; Fodor (2014), pp. 9–38; Bobvos (2011), pp. 7–36 and 13–16; Bakács (1992).

  3. 3.

    Horváth (2010).

  4. 4.

    Farkas Csamangó (2012).

  5. 5.

    Tahyné Kovács (2013).

  6. 6.

    See Szilágyi (1998), pp. 307–324; Szilágyi et al (2001), pp. 75–94; Prugberger (1975), pp. 602–611.

  7. 7.

    The theory of Mihály Kurucz is based on a similar classical approach. He does not designate agricultural law as a separate legal branch, only as a nascent legal branch. As to the classical approach of a separate legal branch, Kurucz noted “that agricultural law is developing, and is annoyingly fragile, especially for those who work with it.” Kurucz (2007), pp. 69–70.

  8. 8.

    According to András Jakab, this approach of a separate legal branch was spread during the socialist period of Hungary; see Jakab (2005), pp. 52–54. Numerous authors (e.g., Miklós Szabó) contradict this theory; for him, the criterion of a separate legal branch descends from the nineteenth century. The author of the present paper shares the opinion of these latter authors.

  9. 9.

    See Szabó (2002), p. 37.

  10. 10.

    The word “modern” refers to the historical determinations of the different legal categories.

  11. 11.

    The name of the “change of regime” refers to a bloodless, economic and political inner reform to a democracy in which the political leaders of the previous totalitarian regime were not called to account (or impeached), and due to this they were allowed to follow their activity in the new system, e.g., as political or economic leaders (i.e., it was not a revolution).

  12. 12.

    See, for example, Bezdán (2012), p. 227; Bobvos and Hegyes (2011), pp. 10–11; Csák (2006), p. 89; Horváth (2010), pp. 14 and 62; Tanka (2007), p. 390.

  13. 13.

    Szilágyi (2007), pp. 112–121.

  14. 14.

    E.g., agricultural law is considered a “private-law-based mixed legal branch” by Pál Bobvos, which definition, inter alia, means that the basis of agricultural law is private law; see Bobvos and Hegyes (2011), p. 10. As opposed to this, István Olajos considered agricultural law as a “primal legal branch” in which the public and private law elements have not been separated; see Olajos (2008b), p. 14.

  15. 15.

    E.g., according to the thesis of Tamás Prugberger, agricultural law is a legal field with sources of different legal branches systematized by a special view of agriculture; Prugberger (1999), pp. 3–22.

  16. 16.

    Jakab (2005), p. 54.

  17. 17.

    See the Resolution of the National Conference of Agricultural Lawyers on the Standard Conception concerning Agricultural Law as a Discipline of Legal Education (Miskolc, 14.1.2005).

  18. 18.

    About the resolution, see Raisz and Szilágyi (2012), pp. 107–148 and 107–108.

  19. 19.

    Raisz and Szilágyi (2012), pp. 108–109.

  20. 20.

    Cf. inter alia Bándi (2011), p. 13; Bobvos (2011), p. 11; Csák (2008), p. 10; Fodor (2001), pp. 16–17.

  21. 21.

    Namely, before WWII, the legislation regulated merely the direct environment of human beings.

  22. 22.

    Fodor (2001), pp. 17–18.

  23. 23.

    Fodor (2001), p. 12. A similar definition can be found in Horváth (2007), pp. 333–355 and 343.

  24. 24.

    Fodor (2014), p. 34.

  25. 25.

    Bándi (2011), pp. 11–23; Bobvos (2011), pp. 14–15; Csák (2008), p. 10; Fodor (2012c), p. 19–21.

  26. 26.

    Act LIII of 1995 on the general rules of environmental protection.

  27. 27.

    Cf. Bándi (2011); Csák (2008); Fodor (2012c).

  28. 28.

    See, e.g., the Hungarian report of the Commission II of the 27th CEDR congress held in Lucerne, Switzerland, from 11th to 14th September 2013; Csák and Raisz (2011) Accessed 15 June 2014; Csák and Jakab (2013). Accessed 15 June 2014.

  29. 29.

    Bell et al. (2013), pp. 721–722; Kubasek and Silverman (2014), pp. 351–353.

  30. 30.

    Fodor (2001), pp. 17–18.

  31. 31.

    The Hungarian jurisprudence also enters into details in connection with the determination of sustainable development; see Bándi (2013); Bányai (2012), pp. 15–61; Szabó (2012), pp. 161–174.

  32. 32.

    See Fodor (2012b), pp. 128–137.

  33. 33.

    On determination of agroecology, see Monteduro (2013), pp. 2–11 and 3–4.

  34. 34.

    See, for example, Raisz (2010), pp. 241–253.

  35. 35.

    Cf. Nagy (2013), p. 83.

  36. 36.

    WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R.

  37. 37.

    See McMahon (2007), pp. 322–330.

  38. 38.

    See Norer (2012), pp. 3–20 and 15–16.

  39. 39.

    See European Court of Justice, Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97, European Parliament vs. Council of the European Union, Judgment of 25 February 1999. On the details, see Fodor (2014), p. 187.

  40. 40.

    See COM(2001) 264 final.

  41. 41.

    On the details, see Jack (2012), pp. 258–273. See, furthermore, Csák (2012), pp. 423–433; Csák and Olajos (2008), pp. 31–42; Farkas Csamangó (2009), pp. 151–170; Olajos (2012), pp. 41–92.

  42. 42.

    See, for example, Bándi (2012), pp. 6–15; Fodor (2006), pp. 41–70 and 102–163; Fülöp (2012), pp. 76–87; Raisz (2012), pp. 37–70.

  43. 43.

    Otherwise, the previous Hungarian constitution and the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of Hungary included utterly progressive provisions in connection with the “non derogation” principle; see Fodor (2014), p. 109.

  44. 44.

    On the agricultural aspects of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Hungary before the Fundamental Law, see Téglási (2009), pp. 18–29.

  45. 45.

    As to the interpretation of the concept of the “nation’s common heritage” in the Hungarian Fundamental Law, see Raisz (2013), pp. 84–96 and 88–96.

  46. 46.

    However, this topic is regarded, inter alia, as both an agricultural and environmental issue by the Hungarian jurisprudence; see, for example, Tahyné Kovács (2013), p. 14.

  47. 47.

    See Art. 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001.

  48. 48.

    See General Court, Case T-240/10, Hungary vs. European Commission, Judgment of 13 December 2013.

  49. 49.

    On an individual Hungarian case, see Raisz (2012), pp. 111–112.

  50. 50.

    Article 21/B-21/F of Act XXVII of 1998 on genetic modification; see Olajos (2008a), pp. 73–88 and 82–87.

  51. 51.

    See Fodor (2012a), pp. 65–75 and 74; Raisz (2015); Tahyné Kovács (2013), pp. 72–77.

  52. 52.

    The determination of agricultural activity is also difficult in other Member States. The German Handbook includes 40 different definitions of agriculture; see Käb (2003), p. 3 and Grimm (2001), pp. 1–4.

  53. 53.

    Horváth (2009), pp. 80–101 and 80.

  54. 54.

    Horváth (2009), p. 80.

  55. 55.

    Horváth (2009), pp. 83–85.

  56. 56.

    On the difference between green and red genetic modification, see Erbguth and Schlacke (2008), p. 336.

  57. 57.

    Fodor (2014), p. 182.

  58. 58.

    Fodor (2014), pp. 184–185.

References

  • Bakács T (1992) Magyar környezetjog. Springer Hungarica, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Bándi G (2011) Környezetjog. Szent István Társulat, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Bándi G (2012) Gondolatok a környezethez való jogról. In: Raisz A (ed) A nemzetközi környezetjog aktuális kihívásai. University of Miskolc, Miskolc, pp 6–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Bándi G (2013) A fenntarthatóság értelmezésének egyes jogi szempontjai. Dissertation, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

    Google Scholar 

  • Bányai O (2012) Az energiafelhasználás csökkentésére és a megújuló energiaforrásokra irányuló szabályozás az ökológiai fenntartjhatóság nézőpontjából. Dissertation, University of Debrecen

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, McGillivray D, Pedersen OW (2013) Environmental law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bezdán A (2012) A vadászati jog, annak gyakorlása és a vadásztársaságok. Dissertation, University of Szeged

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobvos P (2011) Környezetjogi alapvetések. In: Miklós L (ed) A környezetjog alapjai. SZTE-ÁJK – JATEPress, Szeged, pp 7–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobvos P, Hegyes P (2011) Agrárjog. JATEPress, Szeged

    Google Scholar 

  • Csák C (2006) Az agrárjog rendszerbeli sajátosságai és fejlődési tendenciái. In: Miskolczi-Bodnár P (ed) A Civilisztika fejlődéstörténete. Bíbor Publisher, Miskolc, pp 75–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Csák C (2008) Környezetjog. Novotni Publisher, Miskolc

    Google Scholar 

  • Csák C (2012) Cross compliance, avagy környezetvédelem a támogatás feltételeként. Publicationes Universitatis Miskolcinensis Sectio Juridica et Politica 30(2):423–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Csák C, Jakab N (2013) Agriculture and the requirements of a sustainable development: national report for Hungary. Paper presented at the Commission II of the 27th CEDR congress, Lucerne 11–14 September 2013. http://www.cedr.org/congresses/luzern/luzerncom2.php

  • Csák C, Olajos I (2008) The application of the single payment by national administrations and national courts. J Agric Environ Law 3(5):31–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Csák C, Raisz A (2011) Legal framework of environmental law for agricultural production: national report for Hungary. Paper presented at the Commission I of the 26th CEDR congress, Bucharest 21–24 September 2011. http://www.cedr.org/congresses/bucarest/bucharestcom1.php

  • Erbguth W, Schlacke S (2008) Umweltrecht. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas Csamangó E (2009) Kölcsönös megfeleltetés teljesülésének ellenőrzése és a szankciók. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József Nominatae Sectio Juridica et Politica 72(5):151–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas Csamangó E (2012) A kölcsönös megfeleltetés környezetjogi aspektusai. Dissertation, University of Szeged

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor L (2001) Környezetjog előadások. Bíbor Publisher, Miskolc

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor L (2005) Agrárjog. Kossuth Academic Publisher of the University of Debrecen, Debrecen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor L (2006) Környezetvédelem az Alkotmányban. Gondolat Publisher, Budapest-Debrecen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor L (2012a) A GMO szabályozással kapcsolatos európai bírósági gyakorlat tanulságai. In: Csák C (ed) Jogtudományi tanulmányok a fenntartható természeti erőforrások tükrében. University of Miskolc, Miskolc, pp 65–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor L (2012b) A multifinkcionális és fenntartható mezőgazdaság európai modellje. Pro Futuro 2(2):128–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor L (2012c) Környezetvédelmi jog és igazgatás. Debrecen University Press, Debrecen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor L (2014) Környezetjog. Debrecen University Press, Debrecen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fülöp S (2012) Az egészséges környezethez való jog és a jövő nemzedékek érdekeinek védelme az Alaptörvényben. In: Csák C (ed) Jogtudományi tanulmányok a fenntartható természeti erőforrások tükrében. University of Miskolc, Miskolc, pp 76–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm C (2001) Von der Landwirtschaft zur Wirtschaft auf dem Lande?: Gedanken zum Begriff der Landwirtschaft. Agrarrecht 31(1):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Horváth G (2007) A környezetjog és az agrárjog közeledése, találkozása és metszete a magyar jogrendszerben. Állam- és Jogtudomány 48(2):333–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Horváth G (2009) Az agrár-környezetvédelem speciális részterületei. Jog – Állam – Politika 1(2):80–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Horváth G (2010) Az agrár-környezetvédelmi jog elméleti alapvetése és hazai szabályozásának rendszerezése, különös tekintettel agrár-természetvédelmi részterületére. Dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University

    Google Scholar 

  • Jack B (2012) Ecosystem services and the rural environment. Eur Energy Environ Law Rev 21(6):258–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakab A (2005) A jogági felosztás problematikája, különös tekintettel az agrárjogra. Collega 9(4):52–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Käb P (2003) Multifunktionale Landwirtschaft als agrarrechtliches Problem? Agrar- und Umweltrecht 33(3):Annex I

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubasek NK, Silverman GS (2014) Environmental law, 8th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurucz M (2007) Agricultural law’s subject, concept, axioms and system. J Agric Environ Law 2:41–86

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon JA (2007) EU agricultural law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteduro M (2013) Environmental law and agroecology. Eur Energy Environ Law Rev 22(1):2–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy Z (2013) Környezeti adózás szabályozása a környezetpolitika rendszerében. University of Miskolc, Miskolc

    Google Scholar 

  • Norer R (2012) Agrarrecht – eine Einführung. In: Norer R (ed) Handbuch des Agrarrechts. Verlag Österreich, Wien, pp 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Novotni Z (1991) A magyar agrárjog fejlődésének vázlata. Magyar Közigazgatás 41(3):275–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Olajos I (2008a) A géntechnológiai tevékenység szabályozása Magyarországon. In: Szilágyi JE (ed) Környezetjog. Novotni Publisher, Miskolc, pp 73–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Olajos I (2008b) A vidékfejlesztési jog. Novotni Publisher, Miskolc

    Google Scholar 

  • Olajos I (2012) Támogatási rendszereink és a megújuló energiák. University of Miskolc, Miskolc

    Google Scholar 

  • Prugberger T (1975) A jogrendszer tagozódásának egyes időszerű kérdései. Jogtudományi Közlöny 30(10):602–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Prugberger T (1999) Az agrárjog tárgya, rendszere, forrásai és jogágisága. In: Fodor L, Mikó Z, Prugberger T (eds) Agrárjog I. Bíbor Publisher, Miskolc, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisz A (2010) Földtulajdoni és földhasználati kérdések az emberi jogi bíróságok gyakorlatában. In: Csák C (ed) Az európai földszabályozás aktuális kihívásai. Novotni Foundation, Miskolc, pp 241–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisz A (2012) A constitution’s environment, environment in the constitution: process and background of the new Hungarian constitution. Est Europa, Special edn (1):37–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisz A (2013) Water as the nation’s common heritage in the frame of the common heritage of mankind. In: Greksza V, Szabó M (eds) Right to water and the protection of fundamental rights in Hungary. University of Pécs, Pécs, pp 84–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisz A (2015) GMO as a weapon – a.k.a. a new form of aggression? In: Szabó Marcel et al (eds) Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law 2014. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 230–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisz A, Szilágyi JE (2012) Development of agricultural law and related fields (environmental law, water law, social law, tax law) in the EU, in countries and in the WTO. J Agric Environ Law 7(12):107–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabó M (2002) A jogi alapfogalmak. Bíbor Publisher, Miskolc

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabó M (2012) A fenntartható fejlődés: nemzetközi jogi elmélet és szerződéses gyakorlat. In: Raisz A (ed) A nemzetközi környezetjog aktuális kihívásai. University of Miskolc, Miskolc, pp 161–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Szilágyi P (1998) Jogi alaptan. Osiris Publisher, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Szilágyi JE (2007) Az agrárjog dogmatikájának új alapjai – útban a természeti erőforrások joga felé? Jogtudományi Közlöny 62(3):112–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Szilágyi H, Olajos I, Loss S (2001) A jogrendszer. In: Szabó M (ed) Bevezetés a jog- és államtudományokba. Bíbor Publisher, Miskolc, pp 75–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahyné Kovács A (2013) A genetikailag módosított szervezetekre vonatkozó európai és magyar jogi szabályozásról egyes környezetjogi alapelvek, különösen a fenntartható fejlődés tükrében. Dissertation, Pázmány Péter Catholic University

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanka E (2007) Transformation of Hungarian agricultural law (1985/1990–2005). In: Allan FT, Jakab A, Takács P (eds) The transformation of the Hungarian legal order 1985–2005. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, pp 371–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Téglási A (2009) How is property ownership guaranteed constitutionally in the field of agriculture? J Agric Environ Law 4(7):18–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Veres J (1993) Egy lehetséges agrárjogi koncepció vázlata. In: Tóth K (ed) Emlékkönyv dr. Kemenes Béla egyetemi tanár 65, Születésnapjára. Comissio Scientiae Studiorum Facultatis Scientiarum Politicarum et Juridicarum Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József nominatae, Szeged, pp 519–528

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Labour Law, University of Miskolc, Miskolc, Hungary

    J. E. Szilágyi

Authors
  1. J. E. Szilágyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. E. Szilágyi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy

    Massimo Monteduro

  2. Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche; Institute for the History of Law, Università del Salento; University of Münster, Münster, Germany, Lecce, Italy

    Pierangelo Buongiorno

  3. Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy

    Saverio Di Benedetto

  4. Dipartimento di Storia, Societ a e Studi sull’Uomo, Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy

    Alessandro Isoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szilágyi, J.E. (2015). The Relationship Between Agricultural Law and Environmental Law in Hungary. In: Monteduro, M., Buongiorno, P., Di Benedetto, S., Isoni, A. (eds) Law and Agroecology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46617-9_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation