How the KOB SIA case altered the Member States’ margin of appreciation: with particular attention to the judgment’s possibly consistent characteristics and the relevant provisions of Directive 123/2006

Abstract

Several studies and scientific workshops have considered the member states’ rules – within the framework of EU law – on the ownership and use of agricultural and forest property, considering that this area is significant not only for the member states that acceded after 2004, such as Hungary but also for the founding members. These examinations have focused on the public interests acknowledged by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), such as the preservation of the rural population, the promotion of small- and middle-sized, livable properties, and the easing of speculative pressure on the land market, which should be achieved in practice without compromising EU law – especially its fundamental freedoms. This characteristic of the CJEU’s relevant case law primarily led to the application of the free movement of capital; nevertheless, the CJEU’s judgment in the KOB Sia case resulted in a significant change in this area, the main subject of the current examination. This article will consider how the CJEU was altered. Moreover, we examine whether this change could be consistent. We find that the judgments referred by the CJEU in the KOB  Sia case and Directive 123/2006's relevant provisions can serve as a starting point in deciding how the member states' margin of appreciation was altered.