This collection covers selected Court of Cassation decisions dated between 8 October 2021 and 8 October 2026. Citations and summaries were checked against the official full texts published by the Ministry of Justice; each decision links to its source.
Valuation in unlawful-taking cases
Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers · E. 2022/392, K. 2022/844 · 07.06.2022
The valuation provisions of the Expropriation Law apply by analogy to compensation for an unlawful taking. Conflicting prices in comparable share sales required selection of reliable, similar comparables close to the valuation date and a detailed assessment using title, zoning and municipal tax data. The resistance judgment was reversed.
Source: Official decision text
Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers · E. 2022/47, K. 2023/988 · 25.10.2023
For the mined agricultural land in this case, nearby irrigation or the possibility of a future well was insufficient to establish irrigated status. The majority required valuation as dry farmland using the appropriate crop rotation and reversed the resistance judgment.
Source: Official decision text
Application to the administration and settlement
Settlement here means an application to the administration under Temporary Article 6 of the Expropriation Law, not mediation under Law No. 6325. The decisions distinguish compensation from prevention of interference for physical takings in the relevant historical period.
Court of Cassation, 5th Civil Chamber · E. 2023/4221, K. 2023/12478 · 14.12.2023
The prior settlement procedure under Temporary Article 6 applies to compensation claims concerning physical takings within the specified 1956–1983 period. An owner seeking prevention of interference rather than payment may sue directly. The procedural dismissal for failure to apply for settlement was reversed.
Source: Official decision text
Court of Cassation, 5th Civil Chamber · E. 2023/12082, K. 2024/5168 · 30.04.2024
In this compensation case concerning a physical taking before 1983, no document showed that the owners had first applied to the administration for settlement. The court upheld procedural dismissal for the missing settlement condition under Temporary Article 6.
Source: Official decision text
Legal restriction and the five-year period
The five-year period in Additional Article 1 runs from the implementation zoning plan’s entry into force and concerns expropriation or planning measures removing the restriction. The following decisions focus on failure to act within a reasonable time and prolonged restriction rather than computing that period day by day.
Legislative context: In E. 2024/135, K. 2025/20 of 16 January 2025, the Constitutional Court annulled the third sentence providing for compensation actions in civil courts. The annulment took effect on 30 January 2026; the first sentence concerning the five-year period remains in the consolidated text. Jurisdiction and transitional rules require separate consideration for new claims. Sources: Current official legislation, Constitutional Court explanation.
Court of Cassation, 5th Civil Chamber · E. 2024/13710, K. 2025/11843 · 24.09.2025
The property was allocated to education in an implementation zoning plan but had not been physically occupied. Because no action consistent with the plan had been taken within a reasonable period, recovery of the property’s value from the responsible ministry was upheld.
Source: Official decision text
Court of Cassation, 5th Civil Chamber · E. 2025/8354, K. 2026/5032 · 25.03.2026
Cancellation of a later zoning change and the failure to adopt a new plan did not erase the property’s long-standing allocation to public use. The court reversed dismissal of the compensation claim and required consideration of the merits in view of years of legal restriction.
Source: Official decision text
Website content is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice on an individual matter.