I. At the hearing of 25 February 2025, the Constitutional Court, in the context of the a priori constitutional review, unanimously upheld the objection of unconstitutionality and found that the Law amending Law No 287/2009 on the Civil Code was unconstitutional in its entirety.
In essence, the Court held that the introduction of a minimum term of 7 years of the lease contract, namely 14 years, in the event of automatic renewal, without the possibility of negotiating the value of the rent, did not satisfy the constitutional requirements relating to the proportionality of the restriction on the exercise of the right of private property, by limiting the right of disposal of the owners, as well as the constitutional principle of economic freedom, issues that were liable to contravene the provisions of Article 44 (1) and (2) relating to the right to private property, Article 45 relating to economic freedom, and Article 136 (5) relating to property, in relation to Article 53 relating to the restriction on the exercise of certain rights or freedoms.
The Court has also held that the introduction of an undefined and unclear concept, namely “exchange of use between leaseholders”, whereas no guarantee had been provided for landowners, was a legislative solution capable of circumventing the absolute prohibition on sublease, now contained in the first sentence of Article 1847 (2) of the Civil Code, in cases where the exchange of use of the land had taken place between assets which were not of equal value. Thus, the Court ascertained the violation of the right to property of lessors, due to the circumvention of the original will of the parties – lessor and lessee – as to the manner in which the agricultural property will be exploited, as well as of the provisions of Article 1 (3) and (5) of the Constitution, given that the requirements of clarity and foreseeability of the law, as enshrined in the case-law of the Constitutional Court, were not complied with.
The Court has also held that the introduction of a derogating rule, namely the obligation on the landowner’s heirs to maintain the lease, unlike the general rule on tenancy constituted by Article 1820 (2) of the Civil Code, introduced a difference in treatment within the same legal category, namely the heirs of the parties to a lease, which was contrary to the constitutional principle of equal rights, governed by Article 16 of the Basic Law.
*
The decision is final and generally binding.
The reasons underlying the solution adopted by the Constitutional Court will be set out in the decision, which will be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
II. The Constitutional Court also postponed until 11 March 2025 the settlement of the objection of unconstitutionality of the Law supplementing Law No 223/2015 on State military pensions, raised by the Advocate of the People.
Communication and Media Department of the Constitutional Court