The familiar restrictions, mandatory publication of an offer, three years of farming in the municipality and priority for local buyers, no longer apply. In judgment PL. ÚS 20/2014 of 14 November 2018, the Constitutional Court declared them unconstitutional, and the Act no longer contains them. Obstacles remain, however: pre-emption rights, common-property rules and whether the plot qualifies as agricultural land under the Act.
People still repeat the conditions introduced by Act No. 140/2014 Coll. for buying arable land: publication in a register, at least three years of farming in the same municipality and priority for local buyers. Articles, templates and experiences from 2014–2018 continue to rely on them.
The Constitutional Court struck down those conditions
Two groups of MPs challenged the Act, and the Constitutional Court decided in plenary session. Its operative ruling states:
Article I, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Act No. 140/2014 Coll. on the Acquisition of Ownership of Agricultural Land and Amending Certain Acts, as amended, are incompatible with Articles 1(1), 13(4) and 20(1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic.
— PL. ÚS 20/2014 of 14 November 2018, unofficial translation
Sections 4–6 contained the entire restrictive mechanism: publishing offers, ranking buyers by residence or registered office, and state certification of three years’ farming. The current Act no longer contains them. Section 1, defining its scope, and the definition in Section 2 remain.
The Court rejected the remaining challenges. It struck down only those three provisions, rather than the entire Act.
What counts as agricultural land?
The definition remains in force and is useful in disputed transfers. Agricultural land means farmland or land built on for agricultural purposes by 24 June 1991. The Act expressly excludes, among other things, gardens, land inside a municipality’s built-up area, and land outside it if designated for non-agricultural use, restricted in agricultural use under special legislation, smaller than 2,000 m², or adjoining a building with which it forms a functional whole (Section 2(2)).
For development and investment projects, examine this definition first, before negotiating price.
What actually obstructs transfers today?
Removing Sections 4–6 does not mean arable land transfers are identical to all other land transactions. Common issues include:
- Co-owners’ pre-emption rights. These must be addressed on a share transfer; see must I approach co-owners before selling my share?.
- Common property and land communities. A share in common property follows Act No. 97/2013 Coll., including an offer duty to other members. The Constitutional Court did not remove this.
- Agricultural leases. Land may be leased to a farming business, and a change of owner does not end the lease.
- Unidentified owners and Slovak Land Fund administration for shares not traced during renewal of land records, known as ROEP.
- Protection of agricultural land resources when non-agricultural use is planned. This requires separate proceedings unrelated to the ownership transfer.
Why check before signing?
Today’s risk is often an outdated template, rather than a prohibited transfer. An agreement citing repealed provisions or declarations of compliance with non-existent conditions may appear uncertain to the cadastre and delay proceedings. The opposite extreme is equally costly: relying on the removal of restrictions while overlooking pre-emption or common-property offer duties that remain.
We therefore start land purchases by checking the cadastral classification and attached rights. See agricultural land transfers and land purchases and sales. If the other party prepared the agreement, have a purchase agreement review before signing, especially if an older template was adapted.
This answer provides general information on the law as at 16 August 2026. It does not constitute legal services or replace an assessment of an individual case. The details of your situation may differ. Book a consultation to discuss them.
