In brief

  • Anyone who bought from a former owner the right to compensation for a nationalised building receives only the price paid plus 15% of the difference up to the value of the building, not the full compensation.
  • The Constitutional Court has dismissed, as unfounded, a fresh challenge to this rule and confirms case law more than ten years old.
  • Those concerned are the assignees of rights under the restitution laws, the former owners who sold their rights and the lawyers handling restitution files.
Act: CCR Decision no. 738/2025
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 590 of 20 July 2026
Delivered: 9 December 2025

Anyone who bought, in the 2000s, the right to compensation of a former owner dispossessed by the communist regime cannot receive what the building is worth, but the price paid plus 15% of the remainder. The Constitutional Court has confirmed that rule once again, in Decision no. 738 of 9 December 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 590 of 20 July 2026. The field remains one of the most fraught in Romanian law, after payment of the titles issued by the National Authority for Property Restitution was suspended for the whole of 2025.

The text at issue is Article 24(2) of Law no. 165/2013, the law that closed the process of returning buildings abusively taken over during the communist regime. It provides that, in files where compensatory measures are granted to persons other than the holder of the ownership right, the former owner or his legal or testamentary heirs, a number of points is awarded equal to the sum of the price paid for the transfer of the right and a share of 15% of the difference up to the value of the building.

The author of the objection had concluded the assignment contract in 2010, while the order of the general mayor had been issued in 2013. She argued that the 2013 law applies retroactively to an older assignment, that the text is unclear, that it discriminates between assignees and holders and that the drastic capping of compensation empties the right of property of its substance.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is the confirmation of the calculation rule. The assignee receives the points corresponding to the price actually paid to the former owner or to his heirs, to which is added 15% of the difference up to the value of the building, established under Article 21(6) of the law, that is, by the notarial valuation schedule in force on the date the law entered into force.

The second effect is that the difference in treatment between assignees and holders is maintained. The Court repeats the argument from its settled case law: the original holders and their heirs are the direct victims of the abusive takeovers, whereas the assignee acquired the right through a transaction for consideration. The situations being different, different legal treatment does not amount to discrimination.

The third effect concerns non-retroactivity. The Court points out that the text produces no effects on legal situations already exhausted, but applies only to cases still unresolved on the date it entered into force, under the principle tempus regit actum. The provisions set the criteria for turning assignments to account in the administrative procedure, they do not interfere with effects the contracts have already produced.

The fourth effect concerns the right of property. The Court recalls, citing Decision no. 46 of 26 January 2021, that assignees of the claims arising from the restitution laws do not enjoy a possession within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore cannot invoke a breach of Article 44 of the Constitution.

The fifth effect is one of European context. The decision relies on the pilot judgment of 12 October 2010 in Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania, according to which the State may reduce, even very substantially, the level of compensation by legislative means, provided that a reasonable proportionality is preserved. The Court also cites James and Others v. the United Kingdom and Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, for the proposition that legitimate aims of economic reform or of social justice may justify compensation below market value.

The sixth effect is a practical one: nothing changes. The decision dismisses the objection as unfounded, so Article 24(2) remains in force in exactly the same form.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. The Court expressly finds that no new elements have arisen that would warrant a change in its case law, and that the solution and the reasoning of the earlier decisions remain valid.

What is added is a new link in a long chain. The Court lists Decision no. 200 of 3 April 2014, Decision no. 564 of 16 July 2015, Decision no. 224 of 19 April 2016 and Decision no. 46 of 26 January 2021, while the Government, in its point of view, invoked five further decisions to the same effect.

Compared with the regime that preceded Law no. 165/2013, the change of substance remains the one made back then. Until 2013, the assignee of the rights could pursue the same reparatory measures as the holder. Since 2013, the only measure open to him is compensation in points, under Article 24(2), with no access to restitution in kind and no full compensation.

The Bucharest Court of Appeal, the court that referred the matter, stated in its opinion that the text had been adopted precisely in order to implement the recommendations made by the European Court of Human Rights in the 2010 pilot judgment.

The decision was delivered unanimously and is final and generally binding.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It preserves predictability in a field where repeated changes of rule have produced, year after year, chains of litigation.
  • It confirms that full compensation remains reserved for those who actually suffered the abusive takeover and for their heirs.
  • It discourages the speculative purchase of disputed rights, a widespread practice in the years before the 2013 law.
  • The assignee does not lose everything: he recovers the price paid and receives a further 15% of the difference up to the value of the building.
  • The reasoning rests on the standard set by the European Court of Human Rights, which reduces the risk of a ruling against Romania in Strasbourg on this point.

What remains a problem

  • The 15% share is fixed and takes no account of how long the procedure lasted or of the inflation accumulated between the assignment and the payment.
  • The value of the building is set by the notarial valuation schedule in force on the date the law entered into force, that is, by a 2013 benchmark, whatever the year in which payment is made.
  • The distinction between a speculative assignment and one by which an elderly former owner preferred an immediate sum is nowhere drawn in the law.
  • More than five years passed between the raising of the objection, in May 2021, and the publication of the decision, in July 2026.
  • Neither the presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament nor the Ombudsman communicated their points of view.

Practical advice

  1. If you have bought a right to compensation, set your expectations by the formula: the price paid plus 15% of the difference up to the value of the building. Any estimate based on the full value is wrong.
  2. Keep proof of the price actually paid to the former owner. It is the first component of the score and has to be established in the file.
  3. Check the value at which the building was assessed under Article 21(6) of Law no. 165/2013. That is where the difference to which the 15% share applies is calculated from.
  4. If you are a former owner or his heir, do not assign your rights without comparing the sum you receive with what you could obtain directly. After the assignment, the favourable regime is no longer passed on.
  5. The retroactivity argument no longer stands a chance. The Court has consistently dismissed it, on the basis of the principle tempus regit actum.
  6. For files pending before the National Authority for Property Restitution, follow the payment timetable separately. The calculation rule and the moment of payment are different matters.
  7. A decision dismissing an objection as unfounded does not prevent a fresh objection being raised on other grounds, but criticisms already settled will not be re-examined.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed the objection as unfounded and found that the provisions of Article 24(2) of Law no. 165/2013 are constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised. The decision is final and generally binding.
How much does an assignee of rights receive?
A number of points equal to the sum of the price paid to the former owner or to his heirs for the transfer of the ownership right and a share of 15% of the difference up to the value of the building.
Why does he receive less than the former owner?
Because, in the Court’s reasoning, the original holders and their heirs are the direct victims of the abusive takeovers, whereas the assignee acquired the right through a transaction for consideration. The situations being different, different legal treatment does not amount to discrimination.
Does the law also apply to assignments concluded before 2013?
Yes, for files still unresolved on the date it entered into force. The Court points out that the text does not touch legal effects already produced, but sets the criteria for turning the rights to account in the administrative procedure.
How is the value of the building established?
Under Article 21(6) of Law no. 165/2013, that is, by the notarial valuation schedule in force on the date the law entered into force.
Can the right of property guaranteed by the Constitution be invoked?
The Court held that assignees of the claims arising from the restitution laws do not hold a possession within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore cannot invoke a breach of Article 44 of the Constitution.
What does the Maria Atanasiu judgment have to do with it?
The pilot judgment of 12 October 2010 of the European Court of Human Rights recognised the right of the State to reduce, even substantially, the level of compensation by legislative means, provided that a reasonable proportionality is preserved. Law no. 165/2013 was adopted in order to implement the recommendations made in that judgment.

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. 590 of 20 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 110 KB the act starts on page 2

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.