There are instances where the transmission company uses someone else's land on the basis of an administrative decision issued pursuant to the Article 35 of the Expropriation Law without the payment of the compensation. The said law is no longer in force but the issue of the limitation of the compensation claims for the loss resulting from the activities covered by the Article 35 of the Expropriation Law is important to the present moment. An administrative decision based on the Article 35 of the Expropriation Law resulted in the restriction of the ownership of the property owner. The decision granted the company the right to set up on someone else's land the networks and transmission facilities and then exploit them freely and enter the ground for the purposes of maintaining the network. Companies obtained the opportunity to carry out business tasks and goals wherein the network and transmission facilities were used. If the rights of the property owner have been limited as a result of the administrative decision referred to in the Article 35 of the Expropriation Law, it results in the obligation to pay the compensation for the benefit of the property owner. The compensation for loss resulting from the activities covered by the Article 35 of the Expropriation Law was established in the agreement concluded between the property owner and the transmission company. In case of a dispute, the compensation could only be determined by an administrative decision. The property owner has the right to demand compensation from any loss related to the construction of the transmission network and its various devices on its real property, including the reduction in the value of this property. The compensation relation resulting from issuing the expropriation decision including the decision based on the Article 35 of the Expropriation Law has a civil law nature. The admissibility of the limitation of the compensation claims should be acknowledged. The compensation claim is exhausted not only in the demand of its payment, but may take the form of the request for its determination and payment. The compensation claim cannot be limited before its creation, i.e. before its determination. The limitation period of the claim shall run from the date on which the claim is due and the claims for compensation determined by an administrative decision shall become due until after their determination and assignment. The limitation period for the compensation claim in the light of the Article 118 of the Civil Code is 10 years old and runs from the date on which the compensation has been determined. The administrative decision is not the source of the compensation claim but the claim arises ex lege. The court proceedings referring to the compensation issue is inadmissible. The Article 129 (5) of the Act on the real property management may be applied to the facts occurring before the date of this law coming into force and formed pursuant to the Article 35 of the Expropriation Law. The best solution of any doubt referring to the nature and admissibility of the limitation of the compensation claims and the possibilities of applying the Article 129 (5) of the Act on the real property management to the facts occurring before this law's entrance into force would be the legislator's interference regulating the above issues. Therefore, position presented above may be interpreted as de lege ferenda conclusion.