Imagine that for decades, electricity pylons or underground pipes have been standing on your property, yet no one has ever paid a penny for it – and yet you hear that "it's all been acquired by prescription" anyway? The Constitutional Tribunal's judgment of December 2, 2025, in case P 10/16, struck down precisely this approach, finding that the use of the "land easement corresponding in content to a transmission easement" acquired through prescription by transmission companies or the State Treasury was unconstitutional. For many landowners, this represents the first real signal in years that they do not have to consent to the "gratuitous" occupation of their properties in the name of corporate interests.
When is it worth acting and why not delay?
Following the Constitutional Tribunal's ruling, property owners with transmission facilities should review their situation as soon as possible—both in terms of potential financial claims and the possibility of amending existing judgments or agreements. In many cases, procedural deadlines related to reopening proceedings, the expiration of claims, and new legislative action, which the Tribunal has indicated as necessary, will be crucial.
This ruling is a rare moment when the law truly tips the scales in favor of owners, rather than large businesses – it's worth taking advantage of it before the situation stabilizes again under the new rules. If poles, cables, or pipes have been standing on your property for years, and no one has paid you for use of the land, contact our law firm: we will analyze the opportunities, propose a strategy, and help you turn the Constitutional Tribunal's abstract ruling into concrete, tangible benefits.
What did the Constitutional Tribunal judgment change?
The Constitutional Tribunal found unconstitutional an interpretation of Article 292, in conjunction with Article 285 §§ 1-2 of the Civil Code, which allowed an entrepreneur or the State Treasury to assume that, before August 3, 2008, an easement "corresponding in content to a transmission easement" could be acquired by adverse possession by adverse possession, without an expropriation decision and without compensation to the owner. It found that this practice violates the constitutional protection of property (including Articles 21 and 64 of the Constitution) in connection with the principle of proportionate limitation of individual rights (Article 31, paragraph 3 of the Constitution).
What does this mean for plot owners?
First and foremost, the Constitutional Tribunal's ruling opens the door to challenging the argument that a business owner "acquired" the right to use your plot of land at a time when the law didn't even recognize utility easements. If your property is encumbered by a power line, gas pipeline, water pipeline, or sewage system, and the business owner has previously invoked adverse possession, their legal position may be significantly weaker today.
For owners—often private individuals who have been told for years that "that's just how it is and nothing can be done"—this is an opportunity to receive real compensation for the easement or to civilize their relationship with the company through a contractual transmission easement. Media and experts indicate that the consequences of the ruling could affect millions of properties where transmission facilities were installed without a clearly regulated title and without any compensation.
How can our law firm help?
In such cases, it's crucial to combine knowledge of current case law from the Constitutional Tribunal, Supreme Court, and common courts with a practical approach to negotiations with transmission companies. Our law firm can handle both the legal analysis and all formalities, so the owner can focus on business decisions rather than disputes with large infrastructure entities.
Our support may include, in particular:
- Audit of the legal status of the property – checking whether the easement is entered in the land and mortgage register, the basis on which the entrepreneur uses the land, what administrative decisions or agreements exist, and where there are gaps.
- Assessment of whether the entrepreneur can actually invoke adverse possession – taking into account the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal P 10/16, the current position of the Supreme Court and the dates of installation of the devices and changes in regulations.
- Preparing and conducting negotiations with the company to establish a paid transmission easement (e.g., one-time remuneration or periodic benefits) and to regulate the rules of access to facilities in order to resolve the dispute amicably and quickly.
- Representation in court in cases concerning the establishment of transmission easements for remuneration or remuneration for non-contractual use of real estate,
- Analysis of the possibility of reopening concluded proceedings in which the court had previously recognized the adverse possession of an easement "with content corresponding to a transmission easement", taking into account the constitutional principles regarding the effects of Constitutional Tribunal judgments over time.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of December 4, 2025.
Authors:
