In brief

  • The Constitutional Court has confirmed that Article 494(3) of the 1864 Civil Code, the text that says what happens when someone builds on another person’s land, is constitutional.
  • The rule stands: a landowner who wants to keep the building pays the value of the materials and the price of the labour, no matter how much the land has gone up in value.
  • The text still applies today, because the effects of accession are governed by the law in force on the date the works began. Any building started before 1 October 2011 is judged under the old Civil Code.
Act: CCR Decision no. 613/2025
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 576 of 14 July 2026
Delivered: 20 November 2025

A landowner ordered by the courts to pay for the materials and the labour of buildings he had never asked for took his case all the way to the Constitutional Court to escape the bill. The Court rejected him by Decision no. 613 of 20 November 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 576 of 14 July 2026, and left untouched one of the oldest property rules still applied in Romania. The rules on building were substantially reset in 2026 by the Code of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and Construction, but the relations between the owner of the land and the person who put up the building stay in the Civil Code.

The situation in the file is ordinary and common: someone builds on land that is not his. The Civil Code calls it artificial immovable accession, and the text that settles it, Article 494, dates from 1864. The author of the plea had been ordered, in the appeal on points of law before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, to pay those who had put up the buildings the value of the materials, the labour, plus the cost of transporting the materials and the machinery.

His grievance was one of fairness. The text, he said, gives the builder the same money whether he built in good faith or in bad faith, that is, knowing that the land was not his. The only difference, in his view, was that against a builder in good faith the owner cannot ask for demolition. Yet if someone builds in bad faith, he argued, full compensation is excessive, and the Constitution requires rights to be exercised in good faith.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that Article 494(3) remains in force for every dispute in which the works began before 1 October 2011. The Court explains why: Article 58 of Law No 71/2011 provides that, where accession involves a right of option for the owner of the immovable, the effects are governed by the law in force on the date the works began. Not by the law in force on the day of the trial.

The second effect is the confirmation of the mechanism itself. If the landowner wants to keep the building, he pays the value of the materials and the price of the labour, without any account being taken of the increase in the value of the land brought about by the building. If the person who built was in good faith, the owner can no longer ask for removal of the works, but he may choose between the two sums: the value of the materials and the labour, or the increase in the value of the land.

The third effect is one the Court points out precisely where the author of the plea had not looked: against a builder in bad faith the owner has one option more, that of asking for the buildings to be removed at the expense of the person who put them up. That very option, the Court says, is the difference in treatment the author of the plea claimed was missing.

The fourth effect is procedural. The Court dismissed as inadmissible the comparison with Article 582 of the current Civil Code, invoked by the author of the plea as the fairer solution. The unconstitutionality of a rule, the Court states, is a quality intrinsic to that rule and cannot be inferred by comparing two laws with each other.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Nothing has changed in the text, and that is precisely the outcome. Article 494(3) of the 1864 Civil Code says, in the wording it has carried since it was written: if the owner wishes to keep those plantations and buildings for himself, he must pay the value of the materials and the price of the labour, without any account being taken of the increase in the value of the land. And if the works were carried out by a third party in good faith, the owner of the land may not ask for their removal, but has the right to return the value of the materials and the price of the labour or to pay a sum equal to the increase in the value of the land.

What did change, in 2011, is the general framework. On 1 October 2011 the current Civil Code, Law No 287/2009, entered into force, and the 1864 Civil Code was repealed, with the exception of Articles 1169 to 1206. The repeal did not, however, wipe out the disputes born of works started earlier, because the implementing law expressly kept the old regime for them.

In practice, two regimes of immovable accession coexist in Romania: the one in the 1864 Civil Code, for works started up to and including 30 September 2011, and the one in Article 582 of the current Civil Code, for works started from 1 October 2011. The reference date is not the date of the trial, nor the date on which the owner discovers the building, but the date on which the works began.

The Court also clarifies something the case law has been repeating for decades: good faith on the part of the builder means the belief, at the time of the works, that the land is his, because he possesses it under a title of ownership whose defects he does not know. It is not merely the absence of a bad intention.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Predictability for thousands of old disputes: the courts hearing cases about works started before October 2011 know that the text will not be struck down along the way.
  • The Court spells out in black and white the difference in treatment between a builder in good faith and a builder in bad faith, which helps any owner preparing a claim.
  • It confirms that the landowner is not left defenceless against the person who built knowing that the land was not his: he can ask for demolition at that person’s expense.
  • The definition of good faith remains the one from the older case law, so the evidence required does not shift from one file to the next.

What remains a problem

  • An owner who chooses to keep a building put up by a builder in bad faith still pays the value of the materials and the labour, with no cap tied to the increase in the value of the land. The substantive criticism went unanswered on the merits, because it could not be examined as a constitutional question.
  • The coexistence of two regimes, split by the date the works began, breeds confusion and turns the establishing of that date into a chapter of evidence in its own right.
  • Demolition is an expensive remedy and hard to enforce, so in practice the owner ends up paying anyway, whatever the builder’s bad faith.
  • The decision was published almost eight months after it was delivered, and the appeal file sat waiting throughout that time.

Practical advice

  1. Establish first the date on which the works began, not the date on which you found out about them. That date decides whether Article 494 of the 1864 Civil Code applies or Article 582 of the current Civil Code.
  2. Gather evidence of when the works started: permits, invoices for materials, dated photographs, statements from neighbours, images from cartographic archives. In accession disputes this is usually the most contested point.
  3. If the person who built knew that the land was not his, ask the court for removal of the works at his expense as well, not only for compensation. This is the option the Court points to as the difference in treatment written into the law.
  4. If you built believing that the land was yours, keep the title under which you possessed it. Good faith is proved by that title, not by statements about intentions.
  5. Value both sums before the trial: the materials plus the labour, and the increase in the value of the land. Where the builder acted in good faith, the law lets you choose the smaller sum.
  6. Do not build on land that is in dispute or whose land register position is unclear. A land register check costs a fraction of an accession case.

Frequently asked questions

What does artificial immovable accession mean?
It is the situation in which a building, a plantation or works put up by one person with that person’s own materials come to belong to the owner of the land on which they were made. The Civil Code sets out the compensation due to the person who carried out the works.
Is the 1864 Civil Code still in force?
It was repealed on 1 October 2011, with the exception of Articles 1169 to 1206. Its provisions do, however, continue to govern the legal effects of facts that occurred before that date, accession for works started earlier among them.
Who decides whether the building is torn down?
The landowner, but only if the person who built acted in bad faith. Against a builder in good faith the owner cannot ask for removal of the works.
How much does the landowner have to pay?
If he keeps a building put up by a builder in bad faith, he pays the value of the materials and the price of the labour, whatever the increase in the value of the land. If that person acted in good faith, the owner chooses between the same sum and a sum equal to the increase in the value of the land.
What does good faith mean for a builder?
The belief, at the time the works were carried out, that the land was his, based on a title of ownership whose defects he did not know about. It is a definition taken from case law, not a simple absence of bad intent.
Why did the Court not compare the old text with the new Civil Code?
Because a constitutionality review checks whether a text complies with the Constitution, not whether one law is fairer than another. The Court dismissed this criticism as inadmissible.
Does the decision change anything in files already finally decided?
No. The Court rejected the plea, so the text remains exactly as it was, and the judgments given on the basis of it are not reopened.

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. 576 of 14 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 106 KB the act starts on page 5

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.