<\/p>\n
\u00a7 4 of the Transitional and Final Provisions (TFP) of the Law on Ownership and Use of Agricultural Land (ZSPZZ) terminated the right of use over agricultural land granted by acts of the Presidium of the National Assembly, the State Council and the Council of Ministers before 1990, and introduced a special regime for already developed areas (creation of \u201csettlement formations\u201d, inclusion in urbanized territories, adoption of perimeter polygons, etc.). These zones are known as \u201c\u00a7 4 properties\u201d and often became subject to restitution procedures and\/or subsequent urbanization.<\/p>\n
The key legal issue is whether, and from when, acquisitive prescription under the Property Act (ZS) may apply \u2013 Art. 79 (5 years for good faith possession, 10 years for bad faith), with the respective application of suspension and interruption rules under Arts. 115\u2013116 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (ZZD), through the reference in Art. 84 ZS.<\/p>\n
Under Art. 79 ZS, ownership of immovable property is acquired by uninterrupted possession for 10 years, or for 5 years if the possession is in good faith. Art. 84 ZS refers to Arts. 113, 115, 116, 117 and 120 ZZD regarding suspension and interruption of prescription.<\/p>\n
3.1. No prescription before restitution is completed<\/strong> 3.2. After restitution \u2013 prescription applies<\/strong> 3.3. Inclusion in urbanized territories and settlement formations<\/strong> creation of settlement formations (if \u2265 2\/3 of the properties are developed),<\/p>\n<\/li>\n inclusion of such lands into urbanized territories,<\/p>\n<\/li>\n adoption of perimeter polygons by municipal councils.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n These administrative acts clarify the legal status of the land and mark the moment from which prescription requirements (continuous possession, animus, corpus, good\/bad faith) can be assessed.<\/p>\n 3.4. Former users, purchase and restrictions<\/strong> Art. 84 ZS refers to Arts. 115\u2013116 ZZD. Thus, for \u00a7 4 properties:<\/p>\n Suspension<\/strong> \u2013 in cases under Art. 115 ZZD (between parents and children, between spouses, between guardian and ward, during mobilization, and other cases expressly provided by law).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Interruption<\/strong> \u2013 under Art. 116 ZZD (acknowledgement of ownership by the possessor, filing of a claim, enforcement actions). In particular, a reivindication claim under Art. 108 ZS interrupts prescription from the date of filing.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n After 22 November 1997, the general ban on acquisitive prescription of restituted land no longer applies.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The prohibition for former users to rely on acquisitive prescription relates to the period prior to ZSPZZ; thereafter, special rules (\u00a7 4z) and the general prescription regime apply.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n In disputes over area\/identity and the applicability of \u00a7 4z TFP, SCC annuls findings of acquisitive prescription if the prerequisites of the special regime were violated.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Before restitution<\/strong>: no acquisitive prescription applies.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n After restitution<\/strong>: possible under the general rules of Art. 79 ZS, provided possession is established.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Administrative acts under \u00a7 4<\/strong>: decisive for clarifying the regime and starting point of prescription.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Suspension\/interruption<\/strong>: general rules under ZZD apply through Art. 84 ZS; a reivindication claim under Art. 108 ZS interrupts prescription from filing.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Conclusion<\/strong>
According to the consistent practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC), acquisitive prescription does not run against the person entitled to restitution until the restitution procedure under ZSPZZ (including for \u00a7 4 properties) has been duly completed. The reasoning is that the ownership right is \u201cpending\u201d until restoration is finalized.<\/p>\n
Once ownership is fully restored (including after 22 November 1997, when the general ban on acquisitive prescription of restituted agricultural land was repealed), prescription may apply, except in cases where the land constitutes state or municipal public property under Art. 86 ZS.<\/p>\n
\u00a7 4 provides for:<\/p>\n\n
SCC case law explicitly examines the regime of former users, including purchase limits under \u00a7 4z TFP of ZSPZZ (area restrictions, commercial purposes, etc.), which may affect the ability to rely on prescription for periods prior to the entry into force of ZSPZZ.<\/p>\n4)Suspension and interruption of prescription<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
5)Highlights from SCC case law<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
6)Practical conclusions<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
Acquisition by prescription of \u00a7 4 properties is possible only after restitution procedures have been completed and in compliance with the special regimes established under ZSPZZ and secondary legislation. From that point onwards, the general rules of ZS and ZZD on acquisitive prescription apply. The consistent practice of the SCC confirms these principles.<\/p>\n