Due to large-scale environmental degradation caused by decades of state-run mining, residents from Ocnele Mari have been displaced. While the Romanian Courts have had to review this displacement, the approach taken has fallen short of Romania’s national legislation, the ECHR, and the UN Guiding Principles. The Romanian Courts, particularly in the Case no. 35/2025 and Case no. 59/2025[1], decided to use principles of contractual law rather than engaging with the concept of de facto expropriation, which is more closely aligned with European case law and human rights standards, ultimately to the detriment of the affected citizens.
Salt mining operations in Ocnele Mari, conducted during and after the socialist era, led to the formation of underground caverns and subsequent geological instability. After the collapse of several caverns and widespread brine contamination, residents were relocated to state-provided housing in Râmnicu Vâlcea. However, the properties left behind remained legally registered in the names of the former owners, who continued to be liable for property taxes. At the same time, the housing received under relocation measures was not transferred into their ownership, but rather occupied under comodat (loan-for-use) contracts (Decision no. 35/2025, para. III.5; para. VI.1.5), (Decision no. 59/2025, para. III.4; para. VI.1.4).
Comodat contracts under Romanian civil law (Articles 2146–2158) are unilateral, gratuitous, and revocable. They do not transfer ownership or establish succession rights. This created a situation in which displaced residents were unable to sell, inherit, or secure tenure for the housing they had occupied for over 17 years. As a result, the relocation arrangements have led to prolonged housing insecurity and legal liminality. People die, their housing is insecure, and it becomes difficult to create a new comodat with the state, so many people are losing their homes.
The use of civil law mechanisms such as comodat and contract enforcement obscures the nature of the harm suffered by the displaced individuals. The Romanian courts framed the issue as a matter of contract law, rather than recognizing it as a failure of the State to fulfil its obligations under both domestic and international law to protect property rights and ensure restitution for displaced persons.
Despite the irreversible loss of use of their former properties, no formal expropriation procedure was initiated under Law No. 33/1994 on Expropriation for Public Utility, nor was any compensation awarded. While the land from Ocnele Mari remains legally under private ownership, it is functionally excluded from private use and continues to serve public utility purposes related to post-mining infrastructure (Decision no. 35/2025, para. VI.1.5), (Decision no. 59/2025, para. VI.1.4). This situation fulfils the criteria for de facto expropriation as articulated in both Romanian legal doctrine and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
De facto expropriation occurs where state action or inaction results in the substantial deprivation of an individual’s ability to use, enjoy, or dispose of their property, without the formal transfer of title or the provision of compensation. In such cases, the property remains private in form but is effectively public in function. The ECtHR has repeatedly held that prolonged state interference or administrative inaction leading to a loss of control over property may violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. In Broniowski v. Poland (2004), the Court addressed a systemic failure to implement a restitution mechanism for property lost due to post-war territorial changes. In that case, the applicants retained formal ownership over the property, but were unable to use or access it. This is analogous to the residents of Ocnele Mari, whose properties remain legally registered in their names despite being rendered unusable by environmental degradation and brine contamination. In Kopecký v. Slovakia (2004), the Court emphasized that the right to property must be practical and effective, rather than merely theoretical. The Ocnele Mari residents’ formal ownership over land they cannot access, coupled with their lack of ownership over the housing they currently occupy, reflects such a situation. Most recently, in Burghelea v. Romania (2020), the Court held that prolonged administrative inaction, including failure to enforce judgments or provide effective remedies, can itself constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In Ocnele Mari, the Romanian authorities have failed to initiate formal expropriation procedures, transfer title to the relocation housing, or provide compensation, despite the irreversible loss of use of the original properties, for over 17 years. This prolonged inaction has left displaced residents in a state of legal and material limbo. These parallels illustrate that Romania’s response to displacement in Ocnele Mari meets the criteria for de facto expropriation as interpreted by the Court and engages the responsibility of the state under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The National Salt Company (SALROM), a state-owned enterprise under the authority of the Ministry of Economy, is responsible for managing Romania’s salt resources and ensuring post-mining safety. Although operating under commercial law, the consequences of its actions and omissions are imputable to the State, particularly where they result in displacement and the functional conversion of private land to public use. While SALROM was responsible for the destruction of housing through its extractive practices, it was the State, through its administrative bodies, that implemented the relocation scheme and the contracts (Decision no. 35/2025, para. IV.2; para. VI.1.3), (Decision no. 59/2025, para. IV.2; para. VI.1.3).
In both cases, the Vâlcea Tribunal, Civil Section, which exercises jurisdiction over contractual and property disputes at the first-instance level within the Romanian judicial system[2], acknowledged the plaintiffs’ long-term occupation of state-provided housing and their notarised declarations expressing intent to exchange their former properties. The court relied on Article 1279(3) of the Romanian Civil Code to substitute the missing consent of the State in concluding a contract of exchange, interpreting the State’s persistent inaction as an unjustified refusal (Decision no. 35/2025, para. VI.1.4, Decision no. 59/2025, para. VI.1.4). It further invoked Article 1266, which allows courts to prioritise the substance of contractual relations over formal defects.
Nonetheless, while the decisions partially upheld the plaintiffs’ claims, they failed to fully engage with the legal requirements for real estate promissory contracts under Article 1669 of the Civil Code, which include mutual consent, a clearly defined object, and execution in authentic form. This means the contract must be signed before a notary to be valid. The reference in the comodat contracts to a future exchange, phrased as “until the signing of the exchange contract”, may indicate intention, but it cannot replace the formal consent required (Decision no. 35/2025, para. III.6; para. VI.1.5), (Decision no. 59/2025, para. III.5; para. VI.1.5). Romanian law does not recognise implied agreement or prolonged occupation as a substitute for the notarial act, and without it, no binding obligation to transfer ownership exists. More significantly, the court did not characterise the situation as one of de facto expropriation, despite the factual and legal circumstances aligning with definitions under domestic law and the ECHR. The resulting legal vacuum, where ownership remains nominal and rights of use and disposal are extinguished, raises serious concerns under both national property law and international human rights law.
Furthermore, the judicial solution, granting forced conclusion of an exchange contract, may not provide an adequate or proportionate remedy. Given the market value difference between the destroyed rural homes in Ocnele Mari and the urban housing in Râmnicu Vâlcea, questions of lesion (Articles 1221–1225, Romanian Civil Code) remain unaddressed. Lesion arises where, at the time of contract formation, there is a serious imbalance in the value exchanged by the parties. In this case, the plaintiffs have occupied housing in Râmnicu Vâlcea, a regional urban centre with substantially higher property values, for over seventeen years, while their original homes in Ocnele Mari were located in a rural area rendered geologically unstable and uninhabitable due to state-run industrial activity. Rental costs in Râmnicu Vâlcea range from 1,500 to 2,500 RON per month, meaning the total use value of the housing may significantly exceed the market value of the plaintiffs’ former homes. This disparity raises concerns about the enforceability and fairness of any presumed exchange contract. There is a risk that future interpretations could equate prolonged use with compensation, potentially undermining the plaintiffs’ right to further redress. From a human rights perspective, it also calls into question whether the judicial outcome meets the standard of adequate and proportionate compensation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the European Court of Human Rights, compensation for deprivation of property must be reasonably related to the market value of what was lost, must not be purely symbolic or illusory, and must be provided in a timely and accessible manner.
The displaced residents of Ocnele Mari qualify as internally displaced persons (IDPs) under the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which require States to prevent arbitrary displacement, ensure access to legal protection, and provide durable housing solutions. However, no Romanian legislation recognises internal displacement as a legal status, and no administrative mechanism exists to formalise tenure or provide compensation in such cases.
In the absence of recognition, displacement becomes legally invisible. Romanian courts continue to treat these cases as standard civil property disputes, failing to address the structural nature of the harm. This reflects broader institutional and doctrinal limitations, including reluctance to invoke the concept of expropriation due to its association with forced collectivization during the communist period.
The decisions regarding Ocnele Mari residents exemplify how environmental displacement in Romania is currently addressed through fragmented and insufficient legal frameworks. The reliance on contractual doctrines, rather than property or human rights law, illustrates a judicial preference for procedural solutions over structural remedies. Without reform, this approach risks institutionalizing displacement as a permanent condition of legal precarity.
There is an urgent need for Romania to develop legal frameworks capable of recognizing and remedying non-authoritarian forms of expropriation and displacement, particularly those arising from environmental harm and state inaction. This can be done through legislative reform, capacity building for judges, and the integration of international human rights standards into domestic legal reasoning.
Until such changes are made, displaced persons in Romania will continue to fall into legal voids, relocated but not resettled, protected in fact but not in law.
Maria-Ecaterina Nistor is a master’s student in International Human Rights Law at Lund University.
[1] The case file is available upon request from the author
[2] Required to interpret and apply domestic law in conformity with Romania’s international obligations, including the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The concept of de facto expropriation is not foreign to Romanian law or jurisprudence, Romanian courts have previously addressed this issue, and the European Court has ruled on a case involving Romania that concerned precisely the lack of formal expropriation procedures in situations amounting to deprivation of property.