In brief

  • A county land fund commission challenged before the Constitutional Court the very text it was supposed to apply: the article that allows people to obtain ownership of the land beneath the buildings of the former cooperatives. The Court dismissed the plea as inadmissible.
  • The ground for dismissal has nothing to do with the merits. The commission’s grievances concern the meaning of phrases such as “appurtenant land” and the way the text applies in a particular case, which falls within the competence of the courts, not of the Court.
  • Those concerned are the owners of buildings once erected by the agricultural production cooperatives, by the inter-cooperative associations or by the consumer cooperatives, who are seeking title to the land beneath them, together with the town halls and the commissions that rule on their applications.
Act: CCR Decision no. 673/2025
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 596 of 21 July 2026
Delivered: 25 November 2025

The situation is unusual: the authority that applies the land fund law asked the Constitutional Court to strike it down, because it believes the law depletes the assets of the communes. The Court replied that its complaint is not about the Constitution, but about how a text is to be read. Decision no. 673 of 25 November 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 596 of 21 July 2026, dismisses as inadmissible the plea of unconstitutionality raised by the Sălaj county commission for establishing private ownership rights over land. It is the second time in the same issue that the Court closes a case on this ground, after it also dismissed as inadmissible the plea raised by two magistrates concerning the management allowance.

The text at issue is Article 24(3) of Land Fund Law no. 18/1991, in the form preceding the amendment made by Law no. 263/2022. It entitles the current holders to be registered as owners of the land in the built-up area of the locality that is appurtenant to the buildings erected by the former agricultural production cooperatives, by the former inter-cooperative economic associations and by the former consumer cooperatives.

The commission’s grievance started from a concrete change. Law no. 87/2020 removed the condition that the land must not belong to the public or private domain of the administrative-territorial unit. From that moment on, the commission argues, ownership rights can be constituted in favour of private persons over land held by communes and towns, which are then left unable to dispose of it freely.

To this the commission added a criticism of the quality of the law. The phrase “teren aferent” (appurtenant land) is not defined, so in practice the extent of the surface ends up being indicated by the applicant to the surveying expert. Nor does the notion of “immovable property” in letter b) make it clear whether the land, the building or both are meant. And the wording “as well as other buildings held in private ownership” leaves room for an application driven by interests.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the text stays in force, in the form that governed the two case files. The two cases before the Zalău District Court, complaints against decisions by which the commission had rejected applications for restitution of ownership rights, continue to be heard under the law as it stands.

The second effect is a clarification on the substance, even if it comes by way of reasoning and not in the operative part. The Court points out that ownership rights over land in the public or private domain of an administrative-territorial unit are not registered in just any way. The rule remains the inalienability of publicly owned assets, and the constitution of ownership rights presupposes that a legal procedure for transferring the asset from the public domain to the private domain has been followed.

The third effect specifies who verifies this. The Court refers to its own case law and to Decision no. 23 of 17 October 2011 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, delivered in an appeal in the interest of the law: none of the land fund laws provides for a derogating route, so the transfer from the public domain to the private domain takes place only under Article 10(2) of Law no. 213/1998. It is the courts of law that check whether the procedure has been observed.

The fourth effect is procedural and recurs in more and more cases. Where the criticisms concern the meaning of words as applied to a particular dispute, they are not criticisms of unconstitutionality. The Constitutional Court is the guarantor of the supremacy of the Constitution, while justice is administered through the courts of law. Interpreting the law is a matter for the latter.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In normative terms, nothing changes through this decision. What did change, although earlier and by the will of the legislature, is the very source of the dispute. Law no. 231/2018 and then Law no. 87/2020 rewrote Article 24(3), and the second of them removed the condition that the land must not belong to the public or private domain of the administrative-territorial unit.

In the meantime, the text has been amended once again, by Law no. 263/2022. The decision concerns the form preceding that amendment, that is to say precisely the version applicable to the applications filed in the relevant period. For anyone with an older case file, this point matters more than it seems: the applicable law is the one in force at the time of the application, not the one in force today.

What does change is the expectations of the land fund commissions. Until now they could hope that the text would be struck down as unconstitutional and that they would then be able to reject applications on that basis. The decision shows them that the argument does not belong to constitutional review and that public assets are defended before the courts, by checking whether the procedure for transfer from the public domain to the private domain has been followed.

One detail worth keeping in mind: the Zalău District Court, which referred the matter to the Constitutional Court, had considered the plea unfounded, pointing out that Law no. 18/1991 has a reparatory character and that the ownership rights of the State or of the administrative-territorial units are not infringed. The presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, the Government and the Ombudsman did not submit any points of view.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It keeps in force a reparatory text on which people depend who bought or received buildings of the former cooperatives and who need title to the land beneath them.
  • It expressly restates that public property remains inalienable and that a transfer to the private domain requires a specific procedure, so the constitution of ownership rights is not automatic.
  • It states plainly who decides: the courts of law check, case by case, whether the procedure has been observed.
  • The solution was adopted unanimously, so there is no ambiguity as to the ground of inadmissibility.

What remains a problem

  • The problem raised by the commission is a real one and remains unresolved: “appurtenant land” genuinely is not defined, and the extent of the surface is settled in practice on a case-by-case basis.
  • Without a statutory definition, identical applications can receive different answers from different commissions and different courts, which feeds inconsistent practice.
  • The case files waited from 2021 until 2026 to find out that the plea was inadmissible, and the substantive proceedings stood still throughout that period.
  • The decision says nothing about the specific situation in which the land entered State ownership lawfully rather than abusively, a case the commission had invoked separately.

Practical advice

  1. If you have an application for the constitution of ownership rights over the land beneath a former cooperative building, first check which version of Article 24(3) applied on the date of the application. The text was amended in 2018, in 2020 and again in 2022.
  2. Prepare the documentation for the “appurtenant land” carefully, because the law does not define it. Well-reasoned cadastral documentation showing why the surface claimed actually serves the building carries more weight than a figure handed to the expert.
  3. If the land is listed in the public domain of the commune or of the town, ask whether the procedure for transfer to the private domain was followed, under Article 10(2) of Law no. 213/1998. Without that step, the constitution of ownership rights is open to challenge.
  4. Land fund commissions that fear a reduction of local assets should build their defence on checking the transfer procedure, not on the idea that the text is unconstitutional. The Court has closed off that route.
  5. If your application was rejected, the complaint against the commission’s decision is heard by the district court. That is where both the extent of the appurtenant land and the legal status of the land are argued.
  6. Do not mistake inadmissibility for an endorsement of the text. The Court did not say that the law is sound, only that the grievance invoked was not about the Constitution.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed as inadmissible the plea of unconstitutionality concerning Article 24(3) of Land Fund Law no. 18/1991, in the form preceding the amendment made by Law no. 263/2022. The solution was adopted unanimously.
What does the challenged text provide?
That the current holders of buildings erected by the former agricultural production cooperatives, by the former inter-cooperative economic associations or by the former consumer cooperatives may be registered as owners of the land in the built-up area of the locality that is appurtenant to those buildings.
Who challenged the text and why?
The Sălaj county commission for establishing private ownership rights over land. It argued that the text is unclear, in particular the phrase “appurtenant land”, and that it allows ownership rights to be constituted over land held by the administrative-territorial units.
Can land in the public domain of the commune be obtained?
Not directly. The Court pointed out that publicly owned assets remain inalienable and that the constitution of ownership rights presupposes that the land was first transferred from the public domain to the private domain, under the procedure in Article 10(2) of Law no. 213/1998.
Who checks whether the procedure was observed?
The courts of law, case by case. The Constitutional Court does not rule on the way the law is interpreted and applied, but only on a meaning that is contrary to the Constitution.
What does “appurtenant land” mean?
The law does not define it, and this remains one of the practical problems flagged in the case. In practice, the extent of the surface is established through cadastral documentation and is checked by the commission and, in the event of a dispute, by the court.
Does the decision also apply to the current form of the text?
Not directly. It concerns the form preceding the amendment made by Law no. 263/2022, that is the version applicable to the applications of that period. For more recent applications, the form in force on their date is the one that counts.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 596 of 21 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 112 KB the act starts on page 11

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.