DECISION No. 9 OF JULY 6, 1995 ON CC No. 4/95 to which CC NO. 10/95 was attached.
Motion by a group of Members of Parliament challenging the constitutionality of the Law on the Amendment to the Law on the Reinstatement of Ownership Over Nationalized Immovable Property (LALROONIP)(DV, No. 20 of February 24, 1995; DV, No. 4 of May 2, 1995). The Constitutional Court ruled that Clause 1 of the LALROONIP which amends Art. 6 of the Law on the Reinstatement of Ownership Over Nationalized Immovable Property (LROONIP) was anticonstitutional. It violates Art. 17 para 3 of the C. guaranteeing the right to private property. The amendment affects owners' rights as it extends by another three years the period over which they will be unable to take possession of property which has already been restituted. The housing problems of tenants will have to be solved by the Government, i.e. the municipal administration as Clause 1 of the Additional Provision of the LROONIP provides.
The Constitutional Court found Clauses 2 and 3 of the LALROONIP anticonstitutional. These amendments provide for changes in the material and legal grounds of considering the restitution claims in certain hypotheses. The Constitutional Court ruled it was inadmissible from constitutional point of view to put owners in a different position vis a vis the material and legal grounds of hearing the claims, moreover, the people whose suits are still going on for one reason or another will be in more difficult circumstances in the defense of property. The period under Art. 7 of the LROONIP of lodging a claim is preclusive. The claims have either already been lodged or else precluded after the deadline. Further changes shall not be made once the deadline is over. It is violation of Art. 17 para 1 of the C. to have a requirement provided for in the amendments for the positive decision of a property claim not to go into force unless third persons pay up sums. Moreover, these are not even specified.
