When a dispute about property lost in the conflict moves from the question of entitlement to the question of money, the battle is almost always about the arithmetic: which value the decision-making body relied on, which moment it attached that value to, and how the difference between the original and the substitute property was calculated. These are precisely the questions answered by the norm governing the calculation of property value in the restitution and compensation framework, and understanding it is decisive for protecting your financial interest. This page explains in plain terms what the valuation standard requires, how the same standard applies to monetary compensation, how the value gap is covered from the Commission's fund, which exception the law carves out for natural wear and tear, and what role an independent valuation plays when you challenge a calculation.
The valuation standard: market value at the moment of transfer
Under the norm, immovable property subject to restitution and adequate, that is, substitute immovable property must be valued according to its market value as of the moment of the transfer of the property. In practical terms this means that neither the price the property carried before the conflict nor its value on the day your dispute is being examined is decisive: what counts is the market value attached to the exact moment at which the property changes hands. The same norm adds that where the granting of monetary compensation is being decided, the property is valued by the same criteria. There is therefore no separate, lesser standard for money: the compensation route rests on exactly the same valuation foundation as the return of the property itself, and no party should accept a calculation that silently switches to a different basis of value.
Why calculations become disputed and what to check first
In practice, disputed calculations trace back to a handful of typical defects. Often it is unclear which moment was treated as the moment of transfer and whether the figure in the decision actually corresponds to that moment. Sometimes the amount rests on a type of value other than market value. Frequently there is simply no visible conclusion on the difference in value between the original dwelling and the substitute property at all. When you distrust a calculation, examine each of these markers in turn: the correct identification of the moment of transfer, a genuine market basis for the figure, and a stated conclusion quantifying the gap. Whichever of these components is missing becomes the anchor point of your position in the dispute.
The value difference and the Commission's fund
The norm establishes the following rule: where a difference in value exists between the original dwelling and other immovable property, on the one hand, and the immovable property which under the Commission's decision is subject to restitution or is adequate, substitute immovable property, on the other, that difference is covered from the Commission's fund. The loss implied by the gap therefore does not remain the personal burden of the party — the law names the Commission's fund as the source that covers it. It follows that the real subject of the dispute is usually not whether a gap exists, but how large it is: how accurately the market value of each property was determined as of the moment of transfer, because it is the difference between those two amounts that the fund covers. A calculation that understates either side of the comparison directly shrinks what the fund must cover.