Sesizare pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept. Inadmisibilitate. Expropriere pentru cauză de utilitate publică. Retrocedarea imobilului expropriat
Referral for resolving legal issues. Inadmissibility. Expropriation for reasons of public utility. Restitution of expropriated property

Summary/Abstract: The provisions of art. 34 of the Law no. 255/2010 enshrines the character of special norm of this normative act in relation to the general norm on expropriation (Law no. 33/1994), respectively in relation to the common law (the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure). As rules governing the relationship with other statutory provisions, the provisions of art. 34 of the Law no. 255/2010 have an increased degree of generality. Their application to a given case is always subject to the operation of verifying, in particular, the existence in the body of the special character law of its own provisions, and in the case of a negative result, the identification of the norms of the expropriation framework law or, as the case may be, from the common law that can be applied, provided that they are not contrary to the provisions of the special law. According to the provisions of art. 35 of the Law no. 33/1994, the admission of the request for restitution is conditioned by the cumulative fulfillment of two conditions, respectively: 1) the passing of a term of one year, during which the expropriated real estate was not used according to the purpose for which it was taken over and 2) no new declaration of public utility has taken place. Considering the exceptional character of the cession by expropriation of the private property right, as well as the fact that in the Law no. 33/1994, which represents the framework law on expropriation, the possibility of restitution of the expropriated goods is provided, under the conditions of art. 35, by virtue of the reference norm contained in art. 34 of the Law no. 255/2010, in principle, this possibility cannot be excluded in the situation of expropriations ordered by the latter normative act, in the absence of a norm that expressly provides for such a restriction. The fact that art. 22 para. (3) of the Law no. 255/2010, the form in force on April 15, 2016, made express reference to the provisions of art. 21-27 of the Law no. 33/1994 does not exclude the possibility of applying, in concrete terms, other provisions of this normative act, for the cases in which the special law does not stipulate, provided that it does not contravene the special law. The contrary interpretation would have no effect on the provisions of art. 34 of the Law no. 255/2010, in the sense that it would impermissibly restrict the possibility of applying other provisions of the Law no. 33/1994 (except for those provided by art. 21-27) and would constitute a real exemption from the application of art. 35 of the Law no. 33/1994 on the expropriated goods, under the provisions of the Law no. 255/2010, not provided by the law. The possibility of completing the special law with the general law, within the meaning of art. 34 of the Law no. 255/2010, is not susceptible of any explication, being expressly provided by the legal text, with the mention that the application in addition to the special norm of a general norm presupposes a preliminary analysis leading to the conclusion that, in the analyzed matter, the special law does not provide for.

• Details
• Contents