Expropriation in Bucharest: compensation and appeals

In Bucharest and other major cities, expropriation for public utility has increasingly become a very concrete reality for owners of land and buildings. The capital’s ring road, widening of boulevards, road interchanges, metro lines, tram corridors, expropriation corridors for radial roads – all these projects require, at some point, that private property be transferred into the public ownership of the State or local authorities.

For owners, the questions are almost always the same:

“Is it enough that a road appears in the PUG or PUZ for me to be expropriated?”
“How is the compensation actually calculated – at real market value or using some minimum grid?”
“What can I really challenge in court, and within what deadlines?”
“What happens if the project changes or is never built?”

This article aims to explain, in plain language, to owners affected by road, infrastructure and utilities projects, how expropriation for public utility works in Bucharest and in other major cities, what the link is between expropriation and planning documents (PUG, PUZ, PUD), how compensation is calculated and what can be challenged before the courts.

We will refer to:

Law no. 255/2010 on expropriation for public utility necessary to achieve objectives of national, county and local interest (consolidated text in Romanian);
Law no. 33/1994 on expropriation for public utility (consolidated text in Romanian);
Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation (text in Romanian);
Law no. 350/2001 on spatial planning and urbanism (PDF in Romanian);
Law no. 50/1991 on the authorization of construction works (updated version in Romanian);
case law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ), the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR regarding expropriation and “fair compensation”.

For further context on urban planning litigation and administrative disputes, you can also see:

1. Legal framework: property rights, expropriation and urban planning

1.1. Property rights and expropriation under the Constitution and the ECHR

The Romanian Constitution states in Article 44 para. (3) that no one may be expropriated except for a cause of public utility, established according to the law, with fair and prior compensation. The same idea is found in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and allows deprivation of property only under strict conditions and subject to a “fair balance” between the general interest and the individual interest.

From this perspective, any expropriation procedure must simultaneously meet three essential requirements:

it must be based on a genuine public utility, defined by law and by the administrative act triggering the procedure (for example, a Government Decision or a local/ county council decision);
it must comply with a clear and foreseeable procedure, laid down by law;
it must award owners a fair and prior compensation, proportional to the real value of the property and the damage suffered.

1.2. Law 33/1994 and Law 255/2010: two “layers” of expropriation regulation

In Romania, expropriation for public utility is regulated primarily by two pieces of legislation:

Law no. 33/1994 on expropriation for public utility – the “framework” law, regulating the general procedure, especially the judicial component and the criteria for determining compensation (text in Romanian);
Law no. 255/2010, which regulates expropriation for public utility necessary to carry out objectives of national, county and local interest, especially for infrastructure works (roads, motorways, metro, utilities, etc.) (text in Romanian).

Law no. 255/2010 provides in Article 1 that it sets the legal framework for taking the necessary measures to carry out construction, rehabilitation and upgrading works on roads of national, county and local interest, rail, air, naval, hydrotechnical, tourism infrastructure and other works expressly listed. In practice, expropriations related to road and infrastructure projects in major cities (for example, the expropriation corridor for the Bucharest ring road or urban roads) are usually based on this law.

However, Law no. 33/1994 remains the central reference for the criteria for calculating compensation and for how courts ultimately determine the amount owed to the owner. Article 26 of Law no. 33/1994 expressly states that compensation consists of the real value of the property and the damage caused to the owner or other entitled persons.

1.3. Urban planning legislation and building permits

Urban planning documents and building/ demolition permits form the other “arm” of the regulatory system:

Law no. 350/2001 on spatial planning and urbanism – sets out the types of planning documents (PUG, PUZ, PUD), their content and approval procedures (PDF in Romanian);
Law no. 50/1991 on the authorization of construction works – regulates building and demolition permits and makes their issue conditional on compliance with the applicable planning documents (updated version in Romanian).

In Bucharest, the General Urban Plan (PUG of Bucharest) and the Zonal Urban Plans (PUZs) for each sector or area are crucial in defining expropriation corridors, street widenings, future traffic routes or green areas. Many Government Decisions concerning expropriation for works such as the Bucharest ring road, or for municipal road projects, expressly refer to the inclusion of the expropriation corridor in the PUG and to the updating of local planning documents.

2. Expropriation in Bucharest and major cities: from PUG/PUZ to the expropriation corridor

2.1. PUG, PUZ, PUD – what they are and how they relate to expropriation

Urban planning documents are meant to organise, in the medium and long term, how land is used in the city:

PUG (General Urban Plan) – the overall vision for the entire city, setting out main land-use functions by area, the primary street network, green spaces, height regimes etc.;
PUZ (Zonal Urban Plan) – regulates a smaller area (a neighbourhood, a complex), detailing the PUG and, in some circumstances, derogating from it under legal conditions;
PUD (Detailed Urban Plan) – details how a building or a small complex is placed on one or several plots, within the parameters set by the PUG/PUZ.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice has confirmed, in Decision no. 12/2021 (appeal in the interest of the law), that Zonal Urban Plans (PUZs) are normative administrative acts and that the right to challenge them in court is, as a rule, subject to a 5-year limitation period under Article 64 para. (3) of Law no. 350/2001.

In relation to expropriation, PUGs and PUZs typically play two roles:

they legally prepare the public utility project (for example, the route of a new road or the widening of an existing street);
they form the basis for defining the expropriation corridor, which is later formalised through Government or local/ county council decisions and survey documents.

2.2. When does expropriation actually begin, legally speaking?

The mere fact that a PUG or PUZ shows, on a map, a future road, a street widening or a new boulevard does not, in itself, mean that expropriation has taken place. The planning document:

sets the urban planning regime (what can be built, what uses are allowed, what setbacks are mandatory, etc.);
may restrict building rights (for example, prohibit permanent construction within a future traffic corridor);
may, over time, affect the market value of the land, due to limitations in its use.

Expropriation as a transfer of ownership into the public estate begins only when:

the act triggering the procedure is adopted (Government Decision or local/ county council decision, as the case may be), under Law no. 255/2010;
the list of properties to be expropriated and their individual compensation amounts is drawn up and approved;
the expropriating authority issues the expropriation decision and deposits the compensation amounts for the benefit of the owners, under Articles 9 and 19–22 of Law no. 255/2010.

From this moment, ownership is transferred by operation of law to the State or local authority, even if the owner disagrees with the amount of compensation. Challenging compensation is usually done later, in court.

3. Expropriation procedure for infrastructure projects: key stages and documents

For road, rail or utilities infrastructure projects, the standard procedure regulated by Law no. 255/2010 can be summarised as follows:

3.1. Establishing public utility and the expropriation corridor

Drafting the feasibility study and approving technical and economic indicators – usually through a Government Decision (for works of national interest) or by county/ local council decision (for works of county/ local interest).
Identifying the expropriation corridor – delimiting, in reality and in survey/ cadastral documents, the properties affected by the project. The law requires local authorities to prepare parcel plans for the expropriation corridor and hand them over to the expropriating authority.
Aligning with urban planning documents – the expropriation corridor must be included in the PUG/PUZ, and changes to planning documents can themselves become a source of litigation (especially when PUZs are annulled in court).

3.2. The decision triggering the procedure and the list of properties

The next step is the adoption of a Government Decision (or a local/ county council decision, as the case may be) by which:

the location of the public utility works and the expropriation corridor are approved;
the list of private properties located on the site (with cadastral ID, surface, use category etc.) is approved;
the total amount of estimated compensation is approved and the necessary funds are allocated.

In many recent projects involving the extension and upgrading of roads or infrastructure around Bucharest, Government or local/ county council decisions have been accompanied by detailed lists of affected properties, with explicit references to the expropriation corridor and the updating of planning documents.

3.3. Notifying owners, depositing compensation and transfer of ownership

Under Articles 8 and 9 of Law no. 255/2010:

owners are notified of the intention to expropriate and are requested to submit documents proving their ownership or other real rights;
the list of properties to be expropriated is posted at the local council headquarters and on the expropriator’s website;
the expropriating authority must deposit the individual compensation amounts for the benefit of the owners;
after the deposit, the expropriation decision is issued, and transfer of ownership occurs by operation of law on the date of that decision.

In practice, the owner finds themselves in a situation where:

they were registered as owner in the land register up to a certain date;
after the expropriation decision, the property is registered as public property, and the owner becomes a former owner and creditor of the compensation amount;
if they consider the compensation insufficient, the only realistic route is a court action seeking a fair compensation.

4. How PUG/PUZ/PUD matter in expropriation: risks and opportunities for owners

4.1. Planning documents may “prepare” expropriation but do not replace it

PUGs and PUZs do not themselves produce expropriation – they do not transfer ownership. However, they can:

show on maps future roads, green areas or other public utility infrastructure;
limit the right to build (for example, by prohibiting permanent buildings in a future traffic corridor);
influence the market value of the land – sometimes downward (if the land becomes non-buildable), sometimes upward (if the infrastructure increases the value of the remaining land).

Moreover, if a PUZ for an area or sector is later annulled in administrative litigation, the infrastructure project built on that PUZ may be in a delicate legal position: the planning document that justified the project may disappear, but the expropriation decision and compensation typically remain in force. Litigation strategy must then combine urban planning arguments with expropriation and administrative law.

4.2. Can you challenge PUG/PUZ/PUD if they affect your property?

Yes, under certain conditions. According to Article 64 para. (3) of Law no. 350/2001, disputes relating to the approval, revision, suspension or annulment of planning documents are resolved by the administrative courts and, as a rule, the right to challenge approval decisions is time-barred after 5 years from the date of approval.

By Decision no. 12/2021, the High Court of Cassation and Justice confirmed that decisions approving PUZs are normative administrative acts, which means that:

the 6-month time limit under Article 11 para. (1) of Law no. 554/2004 for individual administrative acts does not apply;
the special 5-year time limit in Law no. 350/2001 applies as a rule;
in an action for annulment, one may invoke procedural and substantive legality issues – from missing mandatory approvals to disproportionate restrictions on property rights.

If you are in a situation where a PUG/PUZ has turned your land into an “expropriation corridor” or into a zone with strict building prohibitions, consulting a lawyer specialised in urban planning and administrative litigation is essential to determine whether you can still challenge the plan and under what conditions. For a detailed discussion of such situations, you can also see:
“How to challenge a PUZ or PUD that affects your neighbourhood” (RO).

5. How compensation is determined: legal criteria, valuations and case law

5.1. The legal standard: “fair and prior compensation”

The Constitution, Laws no. 33/1994 and 255/2010, as well as ECtHR and Constitutional Court case law, converge on the same idea: compensation must be fair, genuine and, in principle, prior to loss of ownership.

Article 26 of Law no. 33/1994 provides that compensation consists of:

the real value of the property; and
the damage caused to the owner or other entitled persons (for example, loss of use, relocation costs, loss of income, etc., as long as these are proven).

The High Court and appellate courts have repeatedly stated that compensation cannot be merely formal or symbolic; it must reflect the market value of the property at the time of expropriation and the specific losses suffered.

5.2. Setting compensation in the administrative phase: “on paper” valuations vs. reality

Under Law no. 255/2010, the expropriator initially determines the compensation based on:

valuation reports drawn up by authorised valuers;
“notarial grids”, indicating minimum values for real estate transactions in each locality/ zone;
other internal technical criteria (often criticised as generic and not fully aligned with actual market values).

The Constitutional Court and the High Court have repeatedly addressed the relationship between these minimum “grids” and the obligation to provide genuinely fair compensation. In its Decision no. 78/2021, the High Court (preliminary ruling on questions of law) clarified that, in the judicial phase, when determining compensation, courts consider both the valuation grids drawn up and updated by notaries’ chambers and the legal criteria in Article 26 of Law no. 33/1994 – that is, the actual market price and the concrete damage.

In practice, the value set administratively (by the individual decision on compensation) is often lower than the actual market price. As a result, in many expropriation cases, the core of the dispute is no longer whether the project has a public utility, but rather how much money the owner actually receives.

5.3. What happens in court: the commission of experts and legal interest

When you go to court to challenge the amount of compensation:

the court appoints a commission of experts, according to Articles 25–26 of Law no. 33/1994 – usually one expert appointed by the court, one by the expropriator and one by the owner;
the experts must consider the price at which similar properties are usually sold in the same locality, at the date of the expert report, and the damage suffered by the owner;
the court is not bound by the administrative valuation; if a higher value results from the expert report, it may order the expropriator to pay the difference;
in its case law (for example, Decision no. 31/2020), the High Court has also examined the issue of statutory interest on compensation, as part of fair compensation where actual payment is significantly delayed.

Importantly, under the procedure in Law no. 255/2010, an action challenging the amount of compensation cannot “undo” the expropriation – the transfer of ownership remains valid. The litigation concerns only the amount owed to the former owner.

6. What you can challenge in court and within what deadlines

6.1. Challenging planning documents (PUG, PUZ, PUD)

As shown above, PUGs, PUZs and PUDs are, in principle, normative administrative acts (at least PUZs and, by analogy, PUGs). Therefore:

Article 64 para. (3) of Law no. 350/2001 provides a 5-year limitation period for actions seeking annulment of planning documents;
Law no. 554/2004 generally requires a prior administrative complaint before filing an administrative court action;
the High Court, in Decision no. 12/2021, confirmed the normative nature of PUZ approval decisions and the application of this special time limit.

In Bucharest, many recent disputes over the annulment of sector-level PUZs or specific PUZs started from this interpretation. If the PUG/PUZ underlying an expropriation corridor is annulled, owners may have additional arguments in compensation litigation or even in challenging the alleged public utility of the project.

6.2. Challenging expropriation acts (Government/council decisions, expropriation decisions)

Normative acts triggering expropriation (for example, Government Decisions approving the site and the commencement of expropriation procedures) can, in principle, be challenged in administrative litigation, subject to the general conditions of Law no. 554/2004:

the claimant must show a legitimate interest (usually, being an owner or directly affected by the expropriation corridor);
time limits for the prior complaint and court action (typically 6 months and 1 year for individual acts, with nuances when the act is normative) must be considered;
one may invoke legality defects (breach of Law no. 255/2010, missing approvals, inconsistency with planning documents, disregard of constitutional safeguards, etc.).

In parallel, individual expropriation decisions and decisions establishing compensation can themselves be challenged:

by way of administrative litigation, where the legality of the act is disputed as such;
under Article 22 of Law no. 255/2010, where the amount of compensation is challenged.

6.3. Challenging the amount of compensation – time limit and jurisdiction

Article 22 of Law no. 255/2010 provides that:

the expropriated person who is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation may bring an action before the competent court (usually the tribunal where the property is located);
the time limit is the general limitation period, starting from the date of notification of the decision setting compensation (in practice, 3 years, subject to procedural nuances);
the action concerns only the amount of compensation, not the transfer of ownership, which remains effective;
the procedure follows Articles 21–27 of Law no. 33/1994 for setting compensation (expert commission, valuation criteria, etc.).

The claim is generally exempt from court fees, and courts cannot award less than the initially offered compensation. As a result, the action is effectively “one-way”: either the administrative amount is maintained or a higher amount is awarded.

6.4. Special situations: partial expropriation, abandoned projects, modified corridors

Common practical situations include:

Partial expropriation – where only part of a property is expropriated (for example, a strip of land along the street frontage), issues arise regarding:
- the value of the expropriated part (which cannot be artificially reduced by claiming that the rest of the property gains value through the infrastructure);
- damage suffered by the owner (for example, being unable to build as initially allowed by planning rules).
Expropriation for a project that is never built – the Constitutional Court has examined rules requiring former owners to return compensation and take back unused properties, finding that such solutions may seriously affect legal certainty and property rights. In such cases, complex issues of constitutionality and compatibility with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR arise.
Changing the expropriation corridor – if the route of the works changes and the owner is left with land affected by the “shock” of expropriation (planning restrictions, building impossibility), claims for damages may be considered based on planning regulations or subsequent administrative acts.

In all these situations, the analysis must be case-specific, based on the actual acts and planning documents, combining arguments from constitutional, administrative, urban planning and expropriation law. A lawyer experienced in administrative and urban planning litigation can adapt the strategy to the specific facts.

7. The lawyer’s role in expropriation and urban planning disputes

In Bucharest and major cities, a “typical” expropriation case for public utility almost inevitably overlaps with:

planning documents (PUG, PUZ, PUD), sometimes challenged or annulled;
building permits or related administrative acts;
both administrative and court procedures (prior complaints, administrative actions, compensation claims).

In such cases, a lawyer specialising in administrative law and urban planning can:

analyse the planning documents underlying the project (PUG, PUZ, PUD, approvals, local planning regulations);
review the legality of the expropriation procedure and of the acts issued (Government/ council decisions, expropriation decisions, compensation decisions);
work with valuers and technical experts to document realistic and complete compensation;
choose effective remedies (compensation claim, annulment of certain administrative acts, reliance on case law of the High Court, Constitutional Court or ECtHR, etc.);
protect the owner’s interests both in the short term (increasing compensation) and in the long term (avoiding unwanted planning or fiscal consequences).

If you are an owner affected by an expropriation project in Bucharest or another major city and want to better understand your options, you can also see:

8. Conclusions

Expropriation for public utility in Bucharest and major cities is not just about “taking land for a road”. It is the result of a complex interaction between:

urban planning documents (PUG, PUZ, PUD) – which legally prepare the project;
administrative expropriation procedures (Law no. 255/2010 and Law no. 33/1994);
constitutional and conventional guarantees of property rights and “fair compensation”;
administrative and urban planning litigation – where many of these disputes are ultimately decided.

For owners, key takeaways include:

the fact that a PUG/PUZ shows a future road or widening does not mean you have already been expropriated, but it can limit your building rights and affect the land’s value;
compensation should not be just an amount derived from the notarial grid; it must reflect actual market value and real losses, including through judicial expert reports;
you can generally challenge both planning documents (under the special time limits in Law no. 350/2001) and the amount of compensation (under Article 22 of Law no. 255/2010);
effective strategy often requires a combined approach: urban planning + expropriation + administrative litigation, not just a single isolated lawsuit.

In all such situations, it is crucial not to let deadlines lapse and to build your file (title documents, planning history, valuations, correspondence with authorities) in due time, ideally with the support of a specialised lawyer.

FAQ – Frequently asked questions on expropriation, PUG/PUZ and compensation

1. If a road appears on my land in the PUG or PUZ, does that mean I have already been expropriated?

No. PUGs and PUZs are planning documents that set building rules and routes for future public works, but they do not themselves transfer ownership. Expropriation takes place only when the act triggering the procedure is adopted (Government or council decision) and the expropriation decision is issued after compensation is deposited.

2. Can I stop expropriation in court?

In practice, it is very difficult to completely stop expropriation where there is a major public utility project (road, motorway, metro) and the legal conditions are met. However, you can:

challenge planning documents or triggering acts if there are legality issues;
dispute how the law was applied in your specific case;
focus on obtaining compensation as close as possible to real market value.

3. Within what time limit can I challenge the amount of compensation?

Article 22 of Law no. 255/2010 provides that the expropriated person dissatisfied with the amount of compensation may bring an action before the court within the general limitation period, running from the date of notification of the decision establishing compensation. In practice, this is usually 3 years, but your specific situation – including any procedural steps already taken – must be assessed together with your lawyer.

4. How is compensation for expropriation calculated?

Law no. 33/1994 states that compensation consists of the real value of the property and the damage caused to the owner or other persons entitled. In court, the expert commission considers the price at which similar properties are usually sold in the area at the date of the expert report and the proven damage. Administrative valuation based on the notarial grid is just a starting point and does not limit the court’s power to award a higher amount.

5. Can I claim damages in addition to the value of the land?

Yes, as long as you can prove your loss. Article 26 of Law no. 33/1994 expressly includes damage caused to the owner or other entitled persons. In practice, this may cover loss of income (e.g., rent), relocation costs or other expenses related to restoring the remaining land to a reasonable use. All this must, however, be backed by evidence and argued before the court.

6. Can I challenge a PUZ or PUD that affects my property if several years have passed since approval?

In principle yes, but there is a special time limit. Under Article 64 para. (3) of Law no. 350/2001, the right to challenge approval decisions for planning documents is, as a rule, time-barred after 5 years from the date of approval. Decision no. 12/2021 of the High Court confirmed this time limit and the normative nature of PUZs. If you are close to the end of this period or are unsure when it started, you should consult a lawyer without delay.

7. Do I need a lawyer in order to challenge expropriation compensation?

There is no strict legal requirement to be represented by a lawyer, but in practice it is highly advisable. Expropriation cases combine administrative law, civil law, urban planning, technical expert evidence and property valuation. A lawyer experienced in such disputes can help you choose the right strategy, formulate the appropriate claims and work effectively with experts to obtain compensation as close as possible to real market value.