What Can You Do If Your Land Is Zoned as Green Area (Forest) in the Intravilian according to Cluj-Napoca PUG 2014?
Below is an analysis of a relevant court decision in the field of urban planning, resolved by the Cluj Tribunal and the Court of Appeal of Cluj. It is especially useful for landowners in the Făget area of Cluj-Napoca whose land was designated under the new General Urban Plan (PUG) in a reference territorial unit of type green area, where construction is prohibited. The court ruled that the Local Council of Cluj-Napoca must reclassify the parcel into a zone compatible with the previous construction rules in force before the new PUG took effect.
This case underscores the importance of consulting a real estate and urban planning lawyer in Cluj to protect property rights against changes imposed by the new local normative urban planning framework.
Case Context: Claimants vs. the Local Council and Municipality of Cluj-Napoca
The claimants, owners of a plot registered as hayfield in the Land Registry and located in the Făget area of Cluj-Napoca, challenged the legality of Local Council Decision No. 493/2014. Under this decision, their land was classified in the 2014 PUG as UTR “VP” (green area – in-travilian forest zone). This classification prohibited new constructions, severely restricting their property rights. Previously, under a 1999 PUZ (extended in 2004 and 2006), construction of vacation homes, cabins, or campsites had been permitted.
Claimants’ Arguments and Defense by the Respondents
The claimants argued that the UTR “VP” designation was illegal and abusive: their land had never been forest, but hayfield, according to ownership documents. Moreover, the land had been part of a larger parcel that was subdivided, and constructions had been built on the other subdivided areas.
This situation breached the definition of a Reference Territorial Unit (UTR) under Annex 2 of Law No. 350/2001 on territorial planning and urbanism, which describes UTR as a subdivision characterized by functional and morphological homogeneity, defined by cadastral boundaries, and intended for homogeneous urban regulation.
UTRs are defined by consistent characteristics such as landscape, historic evolution, parcel system, building patterns, and uniform land use. The claimants also invoked a de facto expropriation without prior fair compensation, as the restriction effectively rendered their property rights illusory.
The Local Council and Municipality defended the zoning decision, arguing it was made in accordance with the 2014 PUG to protect existing forests and ensure sustainable development. They claimed the land had always been classified as forest (UTR V6) even under the previous PUG, and the new rules did not harm the claimants. They also cited environmental legislation protecting green spaces and the prohibition against changing the use of land designated as green area.
Cluj Tribunal’s Decision: Partially Annul the 2014 PUG and Revert to Previous Zoning
The Cluj Tribunal partially upheld the claimants’ request, finding that the functional zoning under HCL 493/2014 was unlawful and constituted an abuse of authority by the public authority. Based on the evidence, including a technical expert report in topography and cadastral matters, the court confirmed the land was not forest, was not part of forested land, and had never been intended as such.
The court emphasized that though public authorities have jurisdiction over zoning decisions, such decisions must be well-founded to prevent abuse and respect fundamental property rights. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered partial annulment of HCL 493/2014 and reclassification of the land from UTR Vp/S_Vpf/ps to a UTR equivalent to the previous one before PUG 2014, allowing construction for tourism purposes (vacation homes, cabins, campsites, etc.).
Cluj Court of Appeal’s Decision: Upholding the First Instance Ruling
Both parties appealed the Tribunal’s decision. The Local Council asked for annulment, citing municipal discretion in urbanism and green space regulations. The Court of Appeal of Cluj rejected the appeal, affirming that the Tribunal properly applied legal provisions regarding abuse of power and the protection of property rights. The Court reiterated that depriving someone of property use inconsistent with factual reality—without compensation—violates property rights.
Regarding environmental arguments, the Court confirmed the land in question did not qualify as green spaces under Law No. 24/2007, since it is not forest and does not meet legal definitions of “green area.”
Conclusions and Implications for Cluj-Napoca Landowners Zoned as Green Areas and Prohibited from Building
This case is an exemplary model for Cluj-Napoca landowners wishing to challenge urban zoning under the new PUG. It highlights that zoning designations in non-buildable green area units must reflect the actual nature of the land, its historical urban evolution, and legal definitions of UTR.
Successful judicial outcomes depend on strictly following legal procedures (properly drafted request and refusal, preliminary complaint, administrative litigation, relevant evidence), supported by a skilled urban planning and real estate attorney, and parcel-specific characteristics. While urban classification remains at the discretion of authorities—largely insulated from judicial review—courts may compel changes in certain cases when substantiated by robust evidence.