Regulations for reimbursement of land use fee should be amended: Expert

With the enactment of a National Assembly resolution and a government decree to remove obstacles for real estate projects, several long-stalled real estate projects are finally moving forward. However, more than 1,500 others still struggle with legal and administrative obstacles. Many experts believe that consistent and synchronized legislation is needed to ensure that all these projects are treated equally.

Le Hoang Chau, Chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City Real Estate Association (HoREA), spoke to the Kinh te & Do thi Newspaper about this issue.

What is your opinion on the impact of Resolution 170/2024/QH15 and Decree 76/2025/ND-CP?

We highly appreciate the National Assembly Resolution 170/2024/QH15 because it is the first time that the National Assembly has issued "special mechanisms and policies" to address challenges and obstacles for 64 projects mentioned in inspection conclusions, audits, and court rulings in Ho Chi Minh City, Danang, and the southern province of Khanh Hoa.

The resolution has enabled 49 projects in the central coastal city of Danang (77% of the total), 11 in the central province of Khanh Hoa (17%), and four in the southern metropolis of Ho Chi Minh City (6%). It will allow the resumption of 64 long-stalled projects, which will have a positive impact on the local economy, society, and investment environment.

The two regulatory documents state that once investors have been reviewed and deemed eligible and have fulfilled their financial obligations, they may resume their projects. They can proceed with construction and business activities while their legal rights and those of secondary investors, customers, and homebuyers are protected, avoiding waste of land resources and ensuring that government revenues are fully and correctly collected.

According to HoREA, over 1,500 real estate projects are behind schedule. Do these two legal documents matter to solve the bottlenecks for them?

In addition to the 64 projects in Danang, Khanh Hoa Province, and Ho Chi Minh City, we believe there are many other provinces and cities with stalled projects. Even in the three places mentioned above, there may be more similar projects that need support.

In addition to the detailed regulations under the "special mechanism" of Decree 76/2025/ND-CP, the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment should ensure the constitutionality and consistency of the legal system. Specifically, the provisions in Article 5(6)(b), Article 6(4)(b), Article 7(3)(b), and Article 8(2)(c) of the Decree, which state that "the State shall not refund the difference resulting from the discrepancy in the determination of the land price."

We believe that the state should refund these differences to protect the legal ownership and property rights of businesses, as stated in Article 51(3) of the 2013 Constitution. These provisions should be carefully reviewed, as denying the refund may not be in line with constitutional principles.

Similarly, Article 163 of the 2015 Civil Code protects property and property rights. Therefore, the current regulation that the state will not reimburse the differences contravenes this article.

In addition, Resolution 170/2024/QH15, which sets out the special mechanisms for resolving land and project issues in Ho Chi Minh City, Danang, and Khanh Hoa Province, does not provide for the reimbursement of differences resulting from the recalculation of land use or lease fees that are lower than what the investor has already paid. Therefore, the relevant provisions of Decree 76/2025/ND-CP are inconsistent with this Resolution.

What solutions would you suggest to solve the problems of these 1,500 real estate projects?

The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment should propose to the Prime Minister and the National Assembly to expand the scope of Resolution 170/2024/QH15 and apply it to projects in the same situation nationwide, not just in the three cities and provinces mentioned above.

We also suggest that the ministry propose the repeal of the clause "the State will not reimburse the difference in payment" in Decree 76/2025/ND-CP, as it may contradict Article 51(3) of the Constitution, Article 163 of the Civil Code, and Resolution 170/2024/QH15.

At the same time, we recommend adding a clause that allows the state to refund the difference in payment to investors to ensure consistency and fairness in the legal framework and to reflect both legal and practical realities.

Thank you for your time!