Is the Slovak Constitutional Court Changing the Rules of the Game for Land Beneath Public Buildings?
The resolution of the Plenum of the Slovak Constitutional Court, file No. PLz. ÚS 1/2026-8, may represent a significant shift in the existing approach to compensation for land beneath public buildings under Act No. 66/2009 Coll.
Until now, judicial practice was based on a rather rigid approach – compensation for statutory easements was considered a one-off payment, and many owners’ claims were deemed time-barred as early as 2012. However, after many years, the Slovak Constitutional Court has opened the door to reconsidering this approach and indicated the need for a more balanced assessment of property rights protection.
The decision is particularly significant because it may create room for granting recurring compensation, or claims based on unjust enrichment or the actual use of land without adequate compensation. In practice, this issue affects a large number of landowners, investors, developers, municipalities, and higher territorial units alike.
The practical implications may arise especially in relation to:
🔹 residential parking areas and access roads,
🔹 “E” register land plots covered by road infrastructure,
🔹 land beneath schools, sports facilities, and public premises,
🔹 situations where no lease agreement or other contractual arrangement exists.
For landowners, the current shift in case law may represent a new opportunity to seek financial compensation in ongoing or future disputes. On the other hand, for municipalities and regional authorities, it may create increased pressure on budgets and the need to reassess existing property-law relationships.
At the same time, the Plenum of the Constitutional Court emphasized the importance of legal certainty. It will therefore be crucial to observe how general courts approach time limits, limitation periods, and the protection of already existing decisions in future proceedings.
At LEGATE, we have long been involved in this area within our dispute resolution, construction, and real estate law practice. We therefore view the current resolution as an important impulse for the further development of both case law and legal practice.
You can read more about the decision and its practical implications in our latest expert article.
