Povzetek: Avtor v prispevku s stališča ustavnega načela pravne države preučuje meje zakonodajalčeve suverenosti pri spreminjanju veljavne pravne ureditve. Na podlagi podnačel pravne države o pravnem varstvu in zaupanju pravnih subjektov v pravo obravnava razmerje med potrebo po stabilnosti pravnega reda in potrebo po dinamičnosti pravnega urejanja in ga zamejuje z obstojem ustavnopravno dopustnega cilja, uresničevanjem pravic drugih oziroma z javnim interesom; cilji, ki so sprožili spreminjanje ureditve, pa morajo po testu sorazmernosti presegati negativne učinke na pravice in legitimne pravne interese, ki so jih pravni subjekti pridobili na podlagi pravne ureditve, ki se spreminja (neprava retroaktivnost). Na navedenih ustavnopravnih izhodiščih avtor presoja osnutek Zakona o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o Skladu kmetijskih zemljišč in gozdov Republike Slovenije, po katerem bi zakupniki kmetijskih zemljišč v lasti Republike Slovenije izgubili pravico do podaljšanja zakupnega razmerja, če bi se spremenilo kapitalsko lastništvo zakupnikov kot pravnih oseb za 50 odstotkov ali več, in po katerem bi se zakupnikom, ki imajo v zakupu nad 100 hektarov kmetijskih zemljišč, ob podaljševanju zakupa obseg zmanjševal. Avtor ugotavlja, da predlagatelj za predlagani spremembi ni izkazal obstoja legitimnega stvarnega razloga, zato tudi ni mogel izvesti testa sorazmernosti in preizkusiti pozitivnih učinkov sprememb glede na negativne posledice, ki bi jih utrpeli zakupniki. Ugotavlja, da bi uzakonitev zmanjševanja obsega zakupa kršila 2. člen Ustave RS, izguba upravičenj do obnavljanja zakupnih razmerij zakupnikov, pri katerih bi se spremenila polovica kapitalskih lastnikov, pa bi bila v nasprotju s 33. členom Ustave RS in bi posegla tudi v lastninska upravičenja lastnikov kapitalskih naložb.

Ključne besede: ustavnost spreminjanja pravne ureditve, legitimnost stvarnega razloga, načelo sorazmernosti, zakup kmetijskih zemljišč

Title: Constitutionality of Proposed Amendments and Modifications of the Current Rules Governing the Extension of Contractual Relationships with Lessees of Agricultural Land Owned by the Republic of Slovenia

Abstract: In his contribution, the author examines the limits of the legislature's sovereignty in amending valid legal regulation, in view of the constitutional principle of a state governed by the rule of law. Based on the sub-principles of a state governed by the rule of law relating to legal certainty and trust of legal subjects in the law, the author juxtaposes the need to have a stable legal order with the need for dynamic legal regulation restricting such with the existence of a constitutionally admissible goal, the exercise of the rights of others, and a public interest, while the goal pursued by the amendment must according to the proportionality principle exceed negative effects on the rights and legitimate legal interests that the legal subjects have acquired on the basis of the legal regulation that is amended (quasi retroactivity). Following the mentioned constitutional starting points, the author evaluates the draft Act on the Amendment to the Farmlands and Forests of the Republic of Slovenia Fund Act, according to which the lessees of farmlands owned by the Republic of Slovenia would lose the right to extend the lease if the capital ownership of lessees as legal entities is changed for 50 or more percent, and the provisions pursuant to which the scope of lease of those holding 100 ha or more of farmland will be reduced when the lease is extended. The author establishes that the proposer did not demonstrate the existence of a legitimate actual reason for the proposed amendment, thus the proportionality test could not have been carried out and the positive effects of the amendment in view of the negative consequences for the lessees examined. He establishes that the enactment of reduction in the scope of lease would violate Art. 2 of the RS Constitution, while the losing of entitlements to extend the lease of the lessees among whom a half of capital owners will be changed would also interfere with the ownership entitlements of the owners of capital investments, contrary to Art. 33 of the RS Constitution.

Keywords: constitutionality of amending legal regulation, legitimacy of an actual reason, proportionality principle, lease of farmlands