The paper discusses the mode of land acquisition for public road development resulting from the process of land severance performed at the request of the owner in terms of: the legitimacy of land acquisition by the State Treasury or local government units, by virtue of law, upon the land severance approval, the compensation for taking over the land severed for roads, the possibility of restitution of partially acquired plots of land in case a road has not been constructed, and therefore the redundancy of land earmarked for public purposes. The author compares land acquisition procedures set out in historical and currently applicable regulations as well as obligation to pay compensation. The aim of the research is to answer the question of whether the regulations according to which the land allocated for roads is acquired by operation of law by public entities should be modified, and if so, to what extent. On the example of a selected city, research was carried out to determine whether the acquired land is used at a later stage for road construction and what is the scale of compensation claims paid by the municipality. The conducted research made it possible to propose solutions to modify the mode of land severance resulting in land being severed for road development, considering both rational property management and the rights of former owners for restitution in the event public entities failed to use this real property for public purposes.

This paper unpacks the legitimacy gap existing between post-communist policies of citizenship restitu-tion, the experiences of these policies, and the media coverage of these policies. Considering citizenship restitution first as analogous to property restitution, theoretically citizenship restitution appears as com-pensatory, to right the wrongs of communist- and Soviet-era seizures and border changes, and appears to establish citizenship restitution as a right. Using UK media coverage of Romania’s policy of citizen-ship restitution vis-à-vis Moldova, the paper shows the extent to which this policy is framed as an ille-gitimate loophole propagated by a ‘Romanian Other’ which is ‘giving out’ EU passports, exploited by an impoverished and criminal ‘Moldovan Other’, and inflicted on a ‘UK Self’ that is powerless to stem the tide of migration and block routes to gaining access to the EU via such policies. However, the paper also contrasts, and challenges, this media framing by using interviews with those acquiring Romanian citizenship in Moldova to demonstrate the extent to which acquiring Romanian citizenship in Moldova is a costly and lengthy procedure. Overall, the paper shows the extent to which citizenship restitution is a contested procedure, constructed as a right by the state seeking to compensate former citizens, and as illegitimate by those who construct a logic resulting from feeling threatened by policies of citizenship restitution.

This contribution discusses the unresolved claims of Poland and Germany arising from the destruction, removal, and appropriation of cultural property during and immediately following the Second World War; viewed against the background of the 50th anniversary of the 1970 Warsaw Treaty and the 30th anniversary of the 1990 2+4 Treaty. It provides an analysis of the extent to which these and other bilateral treaties between Germany and Poland impose legal obligations to restore or compensate for the destruction or loss of cultural property. Finally, it suggests pragmatic solutions to overcome the convoluted political, diplomatic and legal debates in the spirit of “cultural internationalism” and in line with the proposals of the Copernicus Group of Polish and German historians.

The Polish Government’s proposal, submitted in autumn 2017, for a comprehensive reprivatisation bill revived the international discussion on the scope of Polish authorities’ obligations to return property taken during World War II and subsequently by the communist regime. However, many inaccurate and incorrect statements are cited in the discussions, e.g. the argument that the duty of the Polish authorities to carry out restitution is embedded in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocol No. 1. This article challenges that claim and analyses the jurisprudence of the Convention’s judicial oversight bodies in cases raising issues of restitution of property taken over in Poland before the accession to both of the above-mentioned international agreements. In the article I argue that there is no legal basis for claiming that there exists a legal obligation upon the Polish State stemming directly from international law – in particular human rights law – to return the property and that the only possibly successful legal claims in this regard are those that can already be derived from the provisions of the Polish law applicable to these kinds of cases. In its latest rulings, issued in 2017–2019, the European Court of Human Rights determined the scope of responsibility incumbent on Polish authorities in this respect.