In recent judicial practice, a recurring issue in expropriation proceedings has been the determination of the legal status of land where the General Urban Plan (PUG) of the locality was approved by a local council decision, but has not been registered with the Land Book and Real Estate Publicity Office (OCPI). The absence of this formality is often used to challenge the applicability of the PUG and, consequently, the intra muros classification of land. This has direct implications for the amount of compensation awarded.
In reality, under Articles 129(6)(c) and 198 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2019 on the Administrative Code, as well as the provisions of Law no. 350/2001 on spatial planning and urbanism, approval of a General Urban Plan is granted by a decision of either the local or county council, and constitutes an administrative normative act. Such a decision takes effect legally from the date it is made public, not from the date of its potential registration with the OCPI. An administrative normative act is presumed to be legal, authentic and true, and is unilateral, self-executing and binding on all natural and legal persons subject to its scope.
Consequently, the non-registration of the PUG with the OCPI cannot be considered a prerequisite for its validity or legal effectiveness. The Land Book and Real Estate Publicity Office has a purely technical role of reflecting the legal situation already established by administrative acts, not validating them. Therefore, once a Local Council Decision approving the PUG has been published, it takes full legal effect and becomes binding on all persons.
This interpretation is supported by both the legal framework and recent case law. The courts have consistently held that the urban classification established by an approved and published PUG prevails over information recorded in the Land Book where this data has not been updated. In a case decided by the Alba Tribunal (Judgment no. 3293/2024), the court found that, although the annex to the Government Decision on expropriation indicated the land as “extra muros”, the urban planning documents and the certificate issued by the local authority expressly confirmed that the land was located within the intra muros area. The court ruled that failing to record the change in urban classification in the Land Book could not affect the legal reality already established by administrative acts, and ordered that compensation be determined based on the value of intra muros land.
On appeal, the Alba Court of Appeal upheld this decision, ruling that the expropriating authority had disregarded the land’s actual classification — namely, that it was located within the intra muros area, as set out in the approved PUG. The court emphasised that, once in force, normative administrative acts are binding on all public authorities and cannot be disregarded on the basis of failed cadastral data updates.
The Dolj Tribunal adopted a similar approach, holding that, although the title deed and expropriation decision referred to the land as “extra muros arable”, the fiscal certificate and confirmation from the local authority proved that it was in fact classified as “intra muros” under the PUG approved by the Local Council. The court considered the expert report that valued the land based on this classification to be properly grounded, reiterating that failure to update the Land Book cannot override the legal effects of a normative administrative act.
Therefore, an analysis of the applicable legal provisions and judicial practice shows that a Local Council Decision approving the PUG has full legal effect from the date of its publication and that not registering it with the OCPI does not affect its binding force. The legal status of land must be determined according to the lawfully approved urban planning documentation, not exclusively by reference to cadastral records.
This conclusion is particularly relevant in the context of expropriations, where the intra muros or extra muros classification of land directly influences the compensation payable to landowners. Administrative acts with normative force, such as Local Council Decisions approving PUGs, prevail over outdated entries in the Land Book, as they reflect the legal reality established by the competent authority when exercising public powers.
Finally, correctly applying the principles of the legality of administrative acts and the priority of public interest requires acknowledging the binding effects of a PUG approval decision, even if it has not been registered with the OCPI. A PUG approval decision is a valid and enforceable legal act that is binding on all persons. It determines the actual urban classification of the land and consequently its market value in expropriation proceedings.