Appeal. Expropriation for public utility reasons. Procedure started according to Law no. 198/2004. Expertise report. Establishing the compensation. Settlement date of compensation. Comparable Cover Image

Recurs. Expropriere pentru cauză de utilitate publică. Procedură începută potrivit legii nr. 198/2004. Raport de expertiză. Stabilire despăgubiri. Data stabilirii despăgubirilor. Comparabile
Appeal. Expropriation for public utility reasons. Procedure started according to Law no. 198/2004. Expertise report. Establishing the compensation. Settlement date of compensation. Comparable

Author(s): Antonia-Eleonora Constantin, Remus Jurj
Subject(s): Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence, Civil Law
Published by: Universul Juridic
Keywords: expropriation; cause of public utility; compensations; fair character; expertise; transfer date of the ownership; comparable;

Summary/Abstract: Regarding the moment when the expropriation in question was operated, the appellate court made the correct application of the provisions of art. 15 of Law no. 198/2004, in force at the date of initiation of the expropriation procedure of the disputed real estate, according to which the transfer of real estate from private ownership to the public ownership of the state or administrative-territorial units and in the administration of the expropriator operates by right on the date of expropriation compensation or, as the case may be, on the date of their registration, under the conditions of the current law. According to those established by the Decision no. 12/2015 of the Constitutional Court, when establishing the compensations, it is required that the assessment be made by reporting at the time of expropriation, respectively of the transfer of ownership, and not on the date of preparation of the expert report, according to the provisions of art. 26 para. (2) of Law no. 33/1994, a contrary solution being likely to violate the provisions of art. 44 para. (3) of the Constitution, the compensation that would be established is no longer a fair one. Given that the transactions available to the experts as being comparable did not reveal higher values than those recorded by the expropriator, the values established by the expert report during the appeal, both in 2008 and in 2010 being lower than those recorded by the expropriator, it results that the compensation established by the expropriator was fair.

  • Issue Year: 2021
  • Issue No: 4
  • Page Range: 100-111
  • Page Count: 12
  • Language: Romanian
Toggle Accessibility Mode