Farmers warn fertiliser law may violate Constitution as experts split

Denmark’s Parliament is expected to pass a controversial fertiliser law later today, giving politicians far-reaching powers to regulate agriculture, DR reports. Farmers’ organisations say the legislation could violate the constitutional protection of private property, while legal experts disagree.

Landbrug & Fødevarer, an agricultural business organisation, says the law and a ban on pesticides raise legal concerns. At an emergency meeting in Odense on Monday, its chairman, Søren Søndergaard, accused some politicians of treating farmers’ fields as a form of common property.

The organisation argues that the law could breach Section 73 of Denmark’s Constitution, which states that private property is inviolable.

Experts disagree

Jens Elo Rytter, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Copenhagen, rejects the claim that the fertiliser law conflicts with the Constitution. He says Section 73 generally cannot be used to claim compensation when the state restricts or bans a harmful activity.

Farmers will retain their land and will still be able to cultivate it, Rytter said.

Frederik Waage, a professor of administrative law at the University of Southern Denmark, disagrees. He said farmers’ ability to use their own land would be significantly restricted and that the law could violate their property rights.

Farmer considers legal action

Thomas Burba, a farmer in Løjt Kirkeby in southern Jutland, said the proposed law was causing him deep concern. If it is passed, he may have to leave significant areas of land uncultivated to achieve a satisfactory yield from the rest of his fields.

Burba said he was prepared to take the matter to court if necessary. He fears he may eventually have to close his farm, ending a family tradition that he had hoped to pass on to his children.

Minister for Nature and Animal Welfare Christian Rabjerg Madsen declined an interview but rejected the criticism in a written response to DR. The ministry said it disagreed that the law raised problems under Section 73 and that the specific regulations could be reviewed by the courts.