<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2020, a commune in Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud County sued a landowner, asking the court to find the absolute nullity of the prefectural order under which, in 1993, his father had been granted ownership of 1.05 hectares of land under Land Fund Law No. 18\/1991. At stake: the annulment of a title of ownership almost three decades old, registered in the land register and passed down through succession, which would have restored the parties to their prior situation \u2014 meaning the complete loss of the land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the first procedural cycle, the Bistri\u021ba District Court granted the commune’s action and found the prefectural order null. The problem: the case was tried without the owner \u2014 a client of our firm, residing abroad \u2014 having been lawfully summoned.<\/strong> We filed an appeal, and the Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud Tribunal set aside the judgment and remanded the case for retrial. On retrial, the commune’s action was dismissed as unfounded, and in December 2025 the Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud Tribunal definitively rejected the commune’s appeal and ordered it to pay our client’s court costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case study explains the defenses that made the difference \u2014 the non-retroactivity of Law No. 169\/1997, the cumulative conditions for absolute nullity in land fund matters, and the protection of the good-faith owner in light of ECHR case law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The situation has its roots in two successive waves of abusive takings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1953.<\/strong> Our client’s predecessor held registered title to more than 20 hectares of land in a mountainous area of Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud County. Under an expropriation decree, the Romanian state took approximately 10 hectares of this land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1984.<\/strong> The land taken from our client’s predecessor did not remain with the state: by a decision of the county People’s Council, it was allocated in exchange<\/strong> to residents of a neighboring commune, whose own land had, in turn, been expropriated to build a reservoir lake. In practice, the family’s former plot was already occupied by third parties, under title, by the time the restitution laws were enacted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1991.<\/strong> After Law No. 18\/1991 was adopted, our client’s predecessor filed a restitution request. Since the former plot was no longer free, the town hall in whose territory the land was located proposed granting an area of 1.05 hectares on another plot under its administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1993.<\/strong> Based on this proposal, the Prefect of Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud County issued the restitution order, under Article 37 of Law No. 18\/1991 (now Article 41). The ownership right was registered in the land register, the plot was subdivided and transcribed into a new land register file.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1995\u20132020.<\/strong> After the titleholder’s death, the land entered the estate and was registered in the heirs’ names on the basis of the certificate of inheritance. Our client appeared with the land in the town hall’s tax records and paid the corresponding tax, a fact confirmed by a document issued by the local authority and filed with the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2020.<\/strong> The commune, which had been the registered owner of the land before 1993 \u2014 based on a 1908 land register entry \u2014 filed the action to establish the absolute nullity of the prefectural order, arguing, in essence, that the prefect could not restitute land that was not owned by the state, but by the commune itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, the Bistri\u021ba District Court granted the commune’s action, found the absolute nullity of the prefectural order, and ordered the parties restored to their prior situation, also ordering the defendants to pay court costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment, however, had an essential procedural defect: the case was tried in the owner’s absence and without his lawful summons<\/strong>, even though he resided abroad. Moreover, the proceedings had continued against a deceased person as a party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We filed an appeal under Article 480(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting, principally, that the judgment and all procedural acts of the first-instance court be annulled and the case remanded for retrial, precisely so that the owner could effectively present his defenses \u2014 including through the taking of evidence \u2014 before the first-instance court, without losing a level of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In November 2024, the Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud Tribunal granted the appeal, set aside the judgment, and remanded the case to the Bistri\u021ba District Court for retrial.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On retrial, we filed a statement of defense and, in the alternative, a counterclaim. The strategy rested on four pillars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The grounds for absolute nullity invoked by the commune are set out in Article III of Law No. 169\/1997, as amended by Law No. 247\/2005. The prefectural order, however, had been issued in 1993, in compliance with Article 37 of Law No. 18\/1991 as in force at that date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We invoked Article II of Law No. 169\/1997<\/strong>, under which the provisions of that law “do not in any way affect titles and other proof-of-ownership documents issued in compliance with the provisions of Land Fund Law No. 18\/1991, at the date they were drawn up,” together with the constitutional principle of non-retroactivity of civil law (Article 15(1) of the Constitution).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The argument was supported by Constitutional Court Decision No. 392\/1997<\/strong>, which held that the purpose of Law No. 169\/1997 is “to uphold the rights of persons who lawfully benefited from the provisions of Law No. 18\/1991, and by no means to undermine those rights,” as well as by the consistent case law of the national courts to the same effect, including that of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first-instance court accepted this reasoning: retroactively applying the grounds for nullity would have been not only contrary to the law, but also liable to destabilize civil transactions, given that the land had been allocated more than 30 years earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The commune relied on the case set out in Article III(1)(a)(ii) of Law No. 169\/1997: title-granting acts in favor of other persons over the former owners’ old plots, requested by them, within the statutory time limit, and free at the time of the request<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That provision imposes four cumulative conditions. We showed that at least one was entirely absent: the commune had never filed a request for reconstitution or restitution of this land under Law No. 18\/1991, Law No. 1\/2000, or Law No. 169\/1997.<\/strong> In the absence of such a request, there was no reference point against which the court could verify whether the request had been made within the statutory time limit or whether the plot was free.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court expressly held that absolute nullity is a sanction to be strictly construed<\/strong>, which “cannot be applied approximately [\u2026] to the detriment of the good-faith owner.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n On appeal, the tribunal added a further argument, also rejecting the ground set out in point (i) of the same provision: our client’s predecessor had actually owned land that was taken by the state \u2014 which ruled out, from the outset, the claim that the beneficiary was not an eligible person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We invoked the case of To\u0219cu\u021b\u0103 and Others v. Romania<\/strong>, in which the European Court of Human Rights held that annulling titles issued under the land fund laws constitutes a deprivation of property<\/strong> within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, permissible only if provided for by law, pursuing a legitimate aim, and striking a fair balance between the general interest and the individual’s fundamental rights. A key criterion is the parties’ responsibility for the alleged irregularities<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court held that our client’s predecessors had correctly informed the authorities when filing their request, had not concealed any relevant circumstance, and that any administrative errors by state institutions cannot be attributed to a private individual who exercised his rights in good faith.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The commune based its action on a 1908 land register entry, made pursuant to a 1907 sale-purchase contract. We asked the court, under Article 293(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to order the claimant to produce the contract, and by interlocutory ruling it was established that the claimant was unable to produce this document<\/strong> \u2014 which, in our view, triggered the sanction provided for by Article 292(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, through the counterclaim filed in the alternative<\/strong> \u2014 for the scenario in which the order would nonetheless be annulled \u2014 we requested a finding that ownership had been acquired by adverse possession (uzucapiune), under Articles 27 and 28 of Decree-Law No. 115\/1938, applicable in Transylvania, invoking the useful and good-faith possession exercised by the predecessor and the client for a period far exceeding the statutory time limits, as well as payment of the tax on the land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n April 2025 \u2013 Bistri\u021ba District Court, on retrial:<\/strong> dismisses the commune’s action as unfounded; dismisses, as filed against a person lacking procedural capacity, the claim brought against the deceased defendant; dismisses the counterclaim, that outcome being ancillary to the ruling on the main claim (with our client remaining the registered owner, the alternative claim was left without practical purpose).<\/p>\n\n\n\n December 2025 \u2013 Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud Tribunal, on appeal:<\/strong> dismisses the commune’s main appeal, holding that none of the grounds for nullity invoked applied and that, at the date it was issued, the prefectural order complied with Article 37 of Law No. 18\/1991. The Tribunal relied on a decisive piece of evidence obtained on retrial: the town hall’s response confirming that, until 1989, the land had appeared in the county agricultural directorate’s records \u2014 meaning it had, in fact, been taken over by the state \u2014 and that from 1990 it had been under the town hall’s administration.<\/strong> Combined with the fact that the commune itself stated it had no knowledge of the land’s status between 1907 and 1993, the tribunal concluded that the commune had no longer exercised the attributes of ownership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cross-appeal, through which we sought to have certain findings regarding the commune’s status as “former owner” removed, was dismissed \u2014 the tribunal holding that, under Article 11(1) of Law No. 18\/1991, the land register extract proves that status even in the absence of the 1907 contract. The practical outcome for the client, however, remained unchanged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The decision is final. The commune was ordered to pay court costs to our client.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Can a town hall seek to annul my title of ownership after 20 or 30 years?<\/strong> Yes. The absolute nullity provided for by Law No. 169\/1997 can be invoked at any time, by the mayor, the prefect, the National Authority for Property Restitution (ANRP), or any person showing a legitimate interest. The passage of time does not extinguish the right of action, but it considerably strengthens the defense based on the stability of civil transactions and the owner’s good faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Is a prefectural order a valid title of ownership?<\/strong> Yes. A prefectural order issued under Article 37 (now Article 41) of Law No. 18\/1991 is a proof-of-ownership document underlying registration in the land register, and it enjoys the presumption of lawfulness of an administrative act until set aside by a court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What should I do if I have only just learned of a lawsuit in which I was the defendant and in which a judgment has already been issued?<\/strong> Urgently check how the summons was carried out and the date the judgment was communicated. A trial conducted without the lawful summons of a party is grounds for annulling the judgment and remanding the case for retrial, under Article 480(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Deadlines are short, and the electronic case file must be reviewed immediately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I own property in Romania but live abroad. Do I need to come to the country for the trial?<\/strong> No. A lawyer can represent the owner throughout the entire proceedings, on the basis of a power of attorney, including for choosing a procedural address in Romania \u2014 which eliminates the risk of missing communications and deadlines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Who bears the court costs?<\/strong> The losing party. In this case, the commune was ordered to pay the court costs incurred by our client on appeal. Courts may reduce the awarded attorney’s fees, so recovery is usually only partial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hora\u021biu Brisc Law Office assists owners and heirs in land fund disputes: actions to establish the nullity of titles of ownership and prefectural orders, challenges against decisions of land fund commissions, actions for the reconstitution of ownership rights, adverse possession claims, land register rectifications, and boundary disputes. We frequently represent clients residing abroad who are unable to travel to Romania for court hearings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you have received a summons from a town hall or a land fund commission \u2014 or if you suspect that a judgment has already been issued in a case in which you were not lawfully summoned \u2014 contact us for a review of the file. Procedural deadlines are short and can only be reinstated under restrictive conditions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A Romanian commune sued a landowner in 2020, seeking to annul a 1993 prefectural order that had granted his father 1.05 hectares of land under the land fund restitution laws. The first court granted the annulment, but did so without lawfully summoning the owner, who lived abroad; Brisc Legal appealed and won a retrial. On retrial, the firm defeated the commune’s claim on four grounds: the 1997 nullity rules could not apply retroactively to the 1993 order; the statutory conditions for absolute nullity were not all met, since the commune had never filed any restitution request over the land; the owner’s good faith was protected under ECHR case law (To\u0219cu\u021b\u0103 and Others v. Romania); and the commune failed to prove its claimed former ownership. In December 2025, the Bistri\u021ba-N\u0103s\u0103ud Tribunal definitively rejected the commune’s appeal and ordered it to pay the client’s court costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","masonry-post","generate-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-50"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5380","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5380"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5380\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5381,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5380\/revisions\/5381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The facts: land received in exchange, following an expropriation from the 1950s<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
First stage: a judgment issued without lawfully summoning the owner<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The defenses on the merits, on retrial<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. Non-retroactivity of civil law: the 1993 order cannot be annulled for grounds introduced in 1997<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. The conditions for absolute nullity are cumulative \u2014 and were not met<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3. The owner’s good faith and ECHR case law<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
4. Burden of proof: proving former ownership status<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The outcome: the commune’s action, definitively rejected<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Is Your Title of Ownership Under the Land Fund Law Being Challenged?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n