es de en fr it hu pt sk

That is so even if they have not contested the unlawful deletion of those rights before the courts.

In 2013, Hungary adopted legislation which, as of 1 May 2014, cancelled the rights of usufruct belonging to persons who do not have a family relationship with the owner of the agricultural land concerned, located in that Member State.

Grossmania, a company owned by natural persons who are nationals of Member States other than Hungary, held rights of usufruct which they had acquired over agricultural parcels in Hungary. Following the extinguishment by operation of law, on 1 May 2014, of those rights of usufruct in accordance with that legislation, those rights were deleted from the land register. Grossmania did not contest that deletion.

By its judgment of 6 March 2018 in the preliminary rulings, SEGRO and Horváth, 1 the Court of Justice held that such legislation constituted an unjustified restriction of the principle of the free movement of capital. Similarly, by its judgment of 21 May 2019, 2 the Court held that, by adopting the national legislation at issue, Hungary had infringed that principle and the right to property guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Following the first judgment, Grossmania applied to the Hungarian authorities to reinstate its rights of usufruct in the land register. That application was, however, rejected on the ground that the legislation at issue was still in force and prevented the reinstatement sought.

Grossmania brought an action against that administrative decision before the Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Győr, Hungary). That court asks the Court of Justice whether, despite the fact that Grossmania did not contest the deletion of its rights of usufruct before the Courts, it must nevertheless disapply that legislation and require the Hungarian authorities to reinstate those rights.

By its judgment delivered today, the Court points out first of all that, in a situation where it has already given a clear reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EU law, as in the present case in the judgment in SEGRO and Horváth, the national court must do everything necessary to ensure that that interpretation is applied.

In particular, since the national legislation at issue is incompatible with the principle of the free movement of capital, the Hungarian court must disregard that legislation when it examines whether the request for reinstatement could be rejected.