THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND CONVENTIONAL EFFECTS OF USUCAPION: BETWEEN THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE GENERAL INTEREST
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND CONVENTIONAL EFFECTS OF USUCAPION: BETWEEN THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE GENERAL INTEREST

Summary/Abstract: Usucapion represents a fundamental institution in civil law, through which ownership or other real rights are legally acquired by continuous and uncontested possession, according to statutory requirements. In Romanian and Moldovan law, usucapion has deep roots in Roman legal tradition and is extensively regulated in the modern Civil Codes of both countries. The institution serves a dual purpose: on one hand, it ensures the stability of legal relations and contributes to the security of civil transactions; on the other hand, it serves the public interest by clarifying uncertain legal situations and preventing protracted litigation. This article examines how usucapion intersects with the protection of property rights, guaranteed both by national constitutions and the European Convention on Human Rights. In Romania, Article 44 of the Constitution enshrines the protection of private property, while in Moldova, Article 46 provides a similar legal framework. At the international level, Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR requires states to maintain a balance between the protection of private property and the realization of the public interest. This dual constitutional and conventional perspective raises fundamental questions regarding the compatibility of usucapion with individual rights and the manner in which a balance between the interests of the parties is achieved. Jurisprudential analysis shows that the Constitutional Courts of Romania and Moldova recognize usucapion as compatible with constitutional protection of property. It is considered a legitimate limitation of property rights justified by the objective of ensuring legal certainty and stability in property relations. At the international level, the European Court of Human Rights has addressed several relevant cases, including Brumărescu v. Romania, Păduraru v. Romania, and Străin and Others v. Romania, highlighting the need to respect the principle of proportionality between the public interest and the protection of private property. Usucapion is deemed consistent with ECHR standards when the limitation of property rights is applied fairly and proportionally. Comparative analysis reveals similarities and differences between the Romanian-Moldovan framework and European models such as those in France, Italy, and Germany, where usucapion operates on similar principles but with specific terms and conditions unique to each system. Recent developments indicate a trend toward European harmonization, particularly through the adaptation of domestic norms to ECHR jurisprudence and the principle of balancing individual rights with the public interest. In conclusion, usucapion remains an essential mechanism in civil law that contributes to the clarity and stability of legal relations, while also raising questions regarding compatibility with the protection of property rights. Evaluating it from a constitutional and conventional perspective highlights the need for careful balance between individual and collective interests, while providing a comparative perspective on its evolution within the European legal context. This approach allows for identifying doctrinal and jurisprudential solutions aimed at harmonizing usucapion with contemporary property rights standards.

• Details
• Contents