Introduction

The issue of compensation for owners of land used as public space has long been one of the most discussed issues at the border of constitutional, civil and administrative law. In the above-mentioned ruling, the Constitutional Court expressed its opinion on the fundamental question of whether the owner of a land, whose legal predecessor implicitly agreed to the public use of the land within the framework of a development project, is entitled to unjust enrichment for the use of this land as a public space. The constitutional ruling in question brings several important conclusions in this regard with implications for practice.

Factual basis of the matter

The owner of the land claimed from the Prague city district unjust enrichment the city received for using his land as a public space. He had acquired the land by means of a purchase contract and his legal predecessor had enabled the construction of roads on the land as part of a development project. The District Court for Prague 1 dismissed the claim, the Municipal Court in Prague confirmed this conclusion, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The complainant then filed a constitutional complaint, in which he alleged a violation of his property rights under Article 11(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

Key arguments of the complainant

The complainant presented several lines of argument. First of all, he argued that the implied consent of his legal predecessor could not bind the legal successor, since it was not formalized as an easement or contractually agreed upon, and the complainant was therefore unaware of it. According to the complainant, municipalities should secure their consent in the form of an easement, and if they do not do so, it is their negligence from which they cannot benefit.

The complainant further argued that even if consent to public use were given, it would not automatically include gratuitousness. The future acquirer may recognize that the land is used as a public space, but not that it is used free of charge. The complainant also pointed to the alleged creation of a dual category of legal successors based on the method of acquisition of the land.

Following the arguments of the complainant – the land owner – the Constitutional Court systematically interpreted the relationship between the owner's consent to public use and the right to compensation under Article 11(4) of the Charter in its ruling.

Distinguishing public space categories

The ruling brings an important distinction between the spaces explicitly mentioned in the provision of Section 34 of Act No. 128/2000 Coll., on municipalities (squares, streets, sidewalks, etc.), which are public spaces by their nature with regard to their urban and social function, and "other spaces" accessible to everyone without restrictions. For the second category, the Constitutional Court confirmed the requirement of the owner's consent as a condition for the creation of a public space, referring to the established case law of the Supreme Court starting with the judgment of June 26, 2019, file no. 22 Cdo 2378/2016.

Consent excludes forced restriction

The main conclusion of the ruling is that if the owner has agreed to the restriction of his property rights, this is not a forced restriction of the property rights within the meaning of Article 11(4) of the Charter. The Constitutional Court explicitly stated that the previous case law awarding compensation in the form of unjust enrichment did not presuppose the existence of the owner's consent to public use. This shift in case law occurred as a result of the gradual development of decision-making practice regarding the conditions for the creation of public space.

Irrevocability of consent and its binding effect on legal successors

The Constitutional Court confirmed that once consent to public use has been granted, it is unilaterally irrevocable and also binds the legal successor. This conclusion corresponds to the case law regarding publicly accessible purpose-built roads. Neither the law nor the case law presupposes the formalization of consent through an easement or bond for the duration of a public space.

Consent includes gratuitousness

The Constitutional Court agreed with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the expression of will by which the owner agrees to the restriction of the right of ownership as a prerequisite for the creation of a public space also includes the will to do so free of charge. It referred to Section 2997(1) of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code, according to which a person who has enriched another person with the knowledge that he is not obliged to do so does not have the right to claim unjust enrichment. It also recalled the conclusions of the professional literature according to which a developer who, when constructing a housing complex, makes the surrounding land accessible to the public cannot demand compensation for the public space thus created.

The significance of the ruling for practice

The ruling I. ÚS 2541/25 has a significant practical impact, especially in the area of development projects. It confirms that a developer who, within the framework of the construction of a residential or commercial center, dedicates land of a communication nature to public use in his own commercial interest, establishes a state of affairs that is also binding on future acquirers of such land. An acquirer of land who, upon purchase, should and could have discovered that the land is used as a public space with the consent of the previous owner, cannot successfully claim unjust enrichment.

From the perspective of the systematics of constitutional protection of property, the ruling is significant in that it clearly defines the boundary between a forced restriction of the right of ownership (Art. 11(4) of the Charter) and a voluntary restriction based on the consent of the owner, even if implicit (implied from the approval process of the development project). Only in the first case does a claim for compensation arise. In the second case, i.e. when the owner himself (even implicitly) agreed to public use, there is no forced restriction and therefore no situation that would need to be compensated through the institute of unjust enrichment.

Critical evaluation

The ruling can be assessed as a logical outcome of the current development of case law, which has gradually clarified the conditions for the creation of public space. A certain weakness may be the fact that the concept of "implied consent" derived from the process of approving a development project places significant demands on the due diligence of future purchasers, who must examine not only the current condition of the land, but also the history of the construction procedure.

On the other hand, it must be admitted that a professional land acquirer (which the complainant apparently was) should be able to ascertain these circumstances.

It is also noteworthy that the Constitutional Court explicitly left open the question of whether in the given case there was an inherent restriction of the right to property under Article 11(3) of the Charter, for which compensation would not be due without further action. This question therefore remains the subject of future jurisprudential developments.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court's ruling, file no. I. ÚS 2541/25, is a significant case law that consolidates the previous decision-making practice in the matter of compensation for the use of private land as public space. It confirms that the owner's consent (even implicit) to the public use of the land excludes both the conclusion of a forced restriction of the right of ownership and the claim for the award of unjust enrichment, even in relation to legal successors.

In practice, this leads to a clear conclusion: anyone who acquires land that is already in fact used as public space based on the consent of the previous owner cannot legitimately expect to be entitled to financial compensation for such use.

Source: epravo.cz