In today's article from the "Lawyer on the Farm" series, we discuss the deregulation of the Agricultural Property Act (UKR) planned for 2026 and what it may (or may not) change in practice. Could a single, seemingly purely technical decision to transform a business into a company suddenly block the purchase of a plot of land for investment, complicate succession, or trigger an avalanche of questions about the National Agricultural Support Center (KOWR), consent, and "acquisition" within the meaning of the Act?
The problem affects everyone today: both private buyers (e.g., a plot of land next to a house) and larger companies (warehouses, production halls, processing plants, photovoltaics, plant expansion). What hurts most is not the wording of the regulations themselves, but rather the uncertainty: the lack of predictability of the timing and cost of the transaction, and sometimes the risk that a poorly planned legal transaction will trigger a cascade of consequences at the bank, at the notary, or during the next sale.
What the government wants to clarify
The basis of the entire problem is the Act of 11 April 2003 on Shaping the Agricultural System (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 1653; "Ukur"). On 17 February, the government adopted, and on 18 February submitted to the Sejm, a draft amendment to this act, which is intended to simplify the trading of agricultural real estate by entrepreneurs and remove interpretational uncertainties that have hindered investment and business development.
The Prime Minister's justification strongly emphasizes the context of deregulation: it aims to improve the legal and institutional environment for Polish companies, reduce formalities, lower transaction costs, and increase legal certainty. The key, then, lies not in a "revolution" in the purchase of agricultural land, but in streamlining the regulations governing transformations, where practice and interpretations by authorities have often diverged.
What specifically is to change? The bill aims to clarify the provisions of the Act on the Currency and Restructuring of Entrepreneurs (Akkur) as they apply to business transformations, in particular by modifying Article 2a, Section 3, Item 14, and Article 4, Section 1, Item 4, Letter c of the Act on the Currency and Restructuring of Entrepreneurs (this is the core of the interpretation problem: does "entrepreneur" also include commercial companies?). The justification also includes an important argument: when a commercial company is transformed into another commercial company, the legal form changes, not the owner of the assets (the principle of continuity under Article 553 of the Commercial Companies Code), so it makes no sense to treat this as a typical acquisition.
What does this mean in practice for people and companies?
If you're running a sole proprietorship and want to transform it into a company (or plan to make in-kind contributions, organize your assets, or prepare for succession), it's crucial to predict whether a given transaction will be considered the acquisition of agricultural property and whether it will require additional steps. The government announcement emphasized that entrepreneurs have previously struggled to interpret the rules for acquiring agricultural property as part of a transformation, and the amendment aims to address these concerns.
This means that an entrepreneur transforming their business from a sole proprietorship to a commercial company will be able to acquire agricultural real estate without the need to obtain KOWR approval. From a day-to-day business perspective, this translates into fewer roadblocks when changing the business form, a lower risk of the reorganization being bogged down in formalities, and a greater chance of the entire process being completed within a realistic investment timeframe.
The biggest risks before the amendment comes into force
The most important thing: until the draft becomes a binding law, all actions must be taken in accordance with the current provisions of the Act on Currency and Restructuring. This means that transactions such as sales, purchases, contributions, loan security or reorganization must be planned on the basis of the currently applicable law.
The risks we see most often in practice include: delays in time (contracts, loans, contractors, grants), uncertainty regarding costs (additional documents, terms, addenda, notarial services), and errors in transaction structure (incorrect form or sequence of steps). The most painful cases are those in which someone signs a preliminary contract without a realistic plan for the formal phase, only to discover that the deadline for closing the transaction was unrealistic.
It's also worth remembering the speed of entry into force: the government announcement indicated that the proposed law is to enter into force 14 days after its publication. This sounds quick, but there's still a legislative process ahead, so for now, it's still a transitional period, where common sense and careful contract construction are key.
How to get through the amendment without chaos?
In such cases, it's often not about a dispute, but about safely achieving a goal: buying, selling, or transforming a company, without wasting the investment or exposing yourself to months of complications. As a law firm, we can assist with document analysis and property status, selecting a strategy (purchase/contribution/reorganization), preparing documents, applications, and appeals, negotiating contract terms, contacting notaries and banks, and, if necessary, representing clients before authorities and courts. We also ensure verification of calculations and adherence to deadlines to ensure key dates are not missed.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of March 4, 2026.
Author:
Series editor:
