The constant jurisprudence of the Court concerning compensation for expropriations during the Communist regime was summed up for the fifth time in this decision. It summarised the theoretical arguments justifying the partial character of the compensation (there is no reprivatisation, the injured persons receive bonds as compensation, etc.). The ruling upheld the constitutionality of the Compensation Law with the exception of one provision that discriminated in favour of a group of former land-owners, making it possible for them to get five times more compensation than other former owners.