THE IN KIND RESTORATION OF PROPERTY FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS IN STATE’S AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES
THE IN KIND RESTORATION OF PROPERTY FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS IN STATE’S AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES

Summary/Abstract: The regulation2 and, generally speaking, the entire institution of the property restoration for agricultural lands which have passed into the state’s authority as the effect of special laws, other than those concerning expropriation, and still administered by the state’s agricultural companies, went through a series of intricate juridical changes, but eventually came up the idea to restore in kind the value of those lands appropriated to the owners. Initially, the keepers of those lands had been given the opportunity to apply for shareholding in the agricultural companies, settled by way of Act no. 15/1990, that are bestowed these lands on administration in exchange for a number of shares proportional to the equivalent surface of agricultural tracts passed to the state’s patrimony. As it may be easily noticed, we testimony a sort of restoration, not merely by natural recovery, provisioned by an actual right (the title to the proper land) as ensued from the semantics of “restoration” phrase, but in a share-holding form (a claim right). Ten years after, under the provisions of Act no. 1/2000, cast by the late and famous rule of restitutio in integrum, the rule turned into a writ that makes provisions expressis verbis for the in kind restitution of property, on the account of the rights encompassing these lands. The breach of this act has a bearing upon those keepers who acquired – due to granted or onerous titles – the shares issued by the state agricultural companies. The problem is highly controversial as much as the laws which regulate the propriety restoration are framed by peremptory rules, functioning as principles and adjudging the right to restitution only to the exowners of agricultural tracts or to their heirs, that is to say those which were robbed from their owner title by the state. A strict enforcement of these principles, without taking into consideration the sheer consequences that the debentures effected in the civil circuit would defraud the present share keepers (that have neither the quality of ex-owners’ or ex-owner’ heirs) for the benefits of Act 1/2000.

• Details
• Contents