Consent to public use of land can exclude claims for unjust enrichment – and binds other owners

The Constitutional Court confirmed the conclusion of the general courts in its ruling (Case No. I.ÚS 2541/25) that if the owner of the land has agreed to the land being used as public open space, it is not a “forced restriction” of the right of ownership within the meaning of Article 11(4) of the Charter and does not automatically give rise to a claim for the recovery of unjust enrichment. In the case at hand, the courts held that the legal reason for the use of the land resulted from the consent of the original owner in connection with the implementation of the construction (development) project and the decision of the building authority; the complainant therefore acquired ownership of land which was already burdened in that way.

The practical impact is significant mainly for the purchasers of the land and for the municipalities/city districts. The decision reinforces the proposition that consent to public use may (in certain circumstances) be implied, may involve no consideration and may be binding on successors in title – limiting the scope for later claims for ‘rent’ or unjust enrichment for the use of roads, pavements or other areas functioning as public spaces. At the same time, however, the award is not a “blank cheque”: in order to prevent future disputes, it will still be wise in practice for municipalities and investors to contractually and substantively regulate the relationship to the land in question (typically by easements), and for purchasers to verify, as part of the legal due diligence process, whether the land is in fact used by the public and under what title.