Abstract
Twice already, the Constitutional Court refused the so-called "restitution end", which was to draw a thick line behind the issuance of replacement land for property confiscated in communism times. At the same time, the Constitutional Court stated that, a priori, it did not condemn the adoption of such a law, but that it was necessary to protect the good faith of previously injured persons within the limits of the constitutional order.
What are the current problems associated with the settlement of the state with restituents, it is possible to make a constitutionally compliant "restitution end", and how strict is the Constitutional Court in resolving this issue, as a negative legislator, that is the topic of the presented article.