CJEU Case C-286/25 / Judgment

BRANDL Mezőgazdasági, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Agrárminisztérium
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Third Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
13/05/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:398
  • CJEU Case C-286/25 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Liability of a Member State in the event of infringement of EU law – Cancellation, by operation of law, of rights of usufruct over properties contrary to Article 63 TFEU and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Restoration of those rights following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Compensation for the damage suffered – National rules providing for financial compensation calculated solely on the basis of the market value of those properties at the time of deletion of the rights of usufruct – Requirement of adequate compensation for the damage suffered – Loss of profit

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

    European Union law must be interpreted as precluding national rules providing for compensation for damage suffered by the usufructuary over properties, following a cancellation, by operation of law, of those rights which is incompatible with Article 63 TFEU and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by means of financial compensation calculated solely on the basis of the market value of those properties at the time when those rights were deleted from the land register.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    24. Moreover, the scope of the Charter, in so far as the action of the Member States is concerned, is defined in Article 51(1) thereof, according to which the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. That provision confirms the Court’s case-law, which states that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by EU law, but not outside such situations. Where, on the other hand, a legal situation does not come within the scope of EU law, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on it and any provisions of the Charter relied upon cannot, of themselves, form the basis for such jurisdiction (judgment of 12 September 2024, Changu, C‑352/23, EU:C:2024:748, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).

    25.  In the present case, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the dispute in the main proceedings, the resolution of which, according to the referring court, requires an interpretation of Article 63 TFEU and, in that context, of Article 17 of the Charter, is a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State, as referred to in paragraph 23 of the present judgment. In the absence of anything in the request for a preliminary ruling to suggest that the manager of Brandl holds a financial stake in the capital of that company, there is nothing in the request establishing with certainty that the dispute in the main proceedings is cross-border in nature.

    ...

    29. In view of the specific information contained in the request for a preliminary ruling, it seems that the principles of EU law relating to compensation for damage caused by a Member State’s infringement of EU law, in this case Article 63 TFEU and Article 17 of the Charter, highlighted in the judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct over agricultural land) (C‑235/17, EU:C:2019:432), are relevant for resolving the dispute in the main proceedings, irrespective of whether the manager of Brandl, who is a national of a Member State other than Hungary, holds a financial stake in the capital of that company. In those circumstances, the case-law referred to in paragraph 27 of the present judgment is relevant and the questions referred enjoy the benefit of the presumption of relevance, with the result that they are admissible.

    ...

    31.  By its judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Usufruct over agricultural land) (C‑235/17, EU:C:2019:432), the Court held that the cancellation, by operation of law, of rights of usufruct, effected by the 2013 Law on Transitional Measures, was incompatible with Article 63 TFEU and Article 17 of the Charter. The incompatibility of those rules with the free movement of capital had already been established by the Court in its judgment of 6 March 2018, SEGRO and Horváth (C‑52/16 and C‑113/16, EU:C:2018:157).

    ...

    33. The Court accordingly finds that, by its questions, the referring courts asks, in essence, whether EU law must be interpreted as precluding national rules providing for compensation for damage suffered by the usufructuary over properties, following cancellation, by operation of law, of those rights which is incompatible with Article 63 TFEU and Article 17 of the Charter, by means of financial compensation calculated solely on the basis of the market value of those properties at the time when those rights were deleted from the land register.

    ...

    35. In a situation such as that intended by the compensation scheme provided for in the 2013 Law on Transitional Measures, as amended in 2021, those conditions are met. The Court has held previously that Article 63 TFEU and Article 17 of the Charter constitute rules of law intended to confer rights on individuals and that infringement of those provisions, established in the infringement proceedings and following from the judgment in preliminary ruling proceedings referred to in paragraph 31 of the present judgment, may be found to be sufficiently serious (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 March 2022, Grossmania, C‑177/20, EU:C:2022:175, paragraphs 70 and 71). Moreover, the existence of a causal link between that infringement and the damage suffered by those persons whose rights of usufruct were deleted is not disputed before the referring court, since certain provisions of the 2013 Law on Transitional Measures, as amended in 2021, are aimed precisely at compensating the damage suffered due to that infringement, established by the Court.

    ...

    49. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the questions referred is that EU law must be interpreted as precluding national rules providing for compensation for damage suffered by the usufructuary over properties, following a cancellation, by operation of law, of those rights which is incompatible with Article 63 TFEU and Article 17 of the Charter, by means of financial compensation calculated solely on the basis of the market value of those properties at the time when those rights were deleted from the land register.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)