Judicial principles and studies
Expropriation of the Right of Disposition: Automatic Renewal and Long Prescription
Concise summary of rules on when expropriation covers the right of disposition with automatic renewal, the limitation period for compensation claims, and the evidential weight of expert reports.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
This summary addresses issues arising when expropriation of the right of disposition coincides with land occupation subject to automatic renewal, the limitation period for compensation claims stemming from an expropriation decision, and the evidential role of expert reports including appellate reliance on a first-instance expert report.
Summary
- Where occupation continues under periods that are automatically renewable, the expropriation is deemed to include the right of disposition for a period equal to the period specified in the expropriation decision if the acquirer (the expropriator) wishes to renew, without requiring a new expropriation decision after the expiry of that equal period, and without any prescribed cap on duration or number of renewals. - The limitation period for a compensation claim arising from an expropriation decision is calculated according to the source on which the plaintiffs base their claim (the expropriation law), not under the law of tortious wrongful act. - There is no special statute fixing the prescription period for compensation arising from expropriation of the right of disposition; therefore general civil law rules apply, and the long prescription in Article (449) (fifteen years) applies, counted from the date of expropriation. - An expert report is admitted as evidence if it accords with reality and procedural and substantive standards, is founded on a sound basis, and has not been legally challenged; its conditions are governed by Article (83) of the Code of Civil Procedure. - The Court of Appeal’s reliance on an expert report produced before the court of first instance does not contravene the law provided no legal challenge undermines that report. This is an educational summary and is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.