Negative conflict of jurisdiction. Compensation for the expropriation in fact

DREPT CIVIL ŞI PROCESUAL CIVIL

Abstract

Preventing the owner from benefiting from the same legal regime of the legal action would be equivalent to a new interference in exercising the ownership right, which, even if apparently, has a legal basis (since art. 21 et seq. of Law no. 33/1994 sets forth that they shall apply if an expropriation proposal was drafted in the administrative procedure), is 
disproportionate in relation to the objective pursued, namely the defence of the ownership right, as long as the owner expropriated in fact should address to the court by way of common law, without benefiting from any procedural facilities brought under the expropriation laws (exemption from the judicial stamp duty, the special jurisdiction of a 
certain court, the certain identification of the object of the claim and of the debtor of the obligation for compensation).