A new legislative initiative in Bucharest could revive Romania’s long-stalled efforts to return church properties confiscated during the communist era. On October 27, 2025, thirty-seven members of Parliament—representing the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (RMDSZ) and other national minority groups—submitted a bill to amend the legal framework governing restitution.

The proposal seeks to modify Emergency Government Ordinance No. 94/2000, which regulates the return of church-owned properties seized by the communist regime prior to 1989.

A Familiar Champion of the Cause

Leading the initiative is Attila Markó, a seasoned politician and one of Romania’s foremost experts on property restitution. Markó previously served on the Special Restitution Commission, where he played a central role in coordinating the return of church assets to their rightful owners. His work led to political persecution and an unjust conviction, forcing him into exile for eight and a half years. Since returning to Romania, he has been re-elected by the Hungarian community and has renewed his commitment to advancing restitution.

The amendment addresses three impediments:

1. Clarify the Definition of “Former Owner”

The bill seeks to resolve a key obstacle: inconsistent interpretations of the term “former owner.” These discrepancies have caused administrative gridlock, prolonged delays in processing claims and rejection of legitimate claims. [See HHRF Report of January  22, 2024.] According to the bill’s explanatory note, “The intent of the legislators—and simple common sense—dictate that a ‘former owner’ is the person from whom the state unlawfully confiscated the property at the time.” The sponsors emphasize:

“Therefore, when assessing restitution claims, the history of ownership or variations in property registries throughout Romania’s history should not be decisive. What matters is the legal situation at the time of confiscation: the individual specifically named in the relevant laws or administrative acts based on which their property was de facto taken.”

This clarification aims to prevent bureaucratic misinterpretations and ensure that restitution decisions reflect the original act of confiscation, not later registry inconsistencies.

• Strengthen Legal Certainty

To reinforce legal clarity, the bill stipulates that documents proving unlawful confiscation shall serve as full and direct evidence of ownership. It introduces a legal presumption: ownership is recognized based on the law, administrative act, or official document that ordered or executed the confiscation. If multiple documents exist, the one supporting the broadest ownership claim should prevail. The extent of ownership may also be demonstrated through any valid form of evidence.

• A Renewed Deadline for Claims

The proposal includes a new, reasonable deadline for submitting restitution requests or resubmitting previously rejected claims—particularly those dismissed due to earlier misinterpretations of legal ownership.

Since the governing coalition’s agreement includes the objective of concluding religious property restitution, the bill’s sponsors are counting on support from the other members.

If adopted, the amendment could breathe new life into one of Romania’s most politically sensitive and historically significant efforts to address the injustices of the communist era.

Please follow and like us: