It is observed in both texts that, in order to raise the question of deprivation of the immovable property of natural or legal persons under private law, a conflict of interest is required. Such a conflict will obviously have the interests and priorities of individuals on the one hand and the state interest on the other. And of course the state interest does not have as its own goal to serve its narrowly "personal" interest, that is the interest of the respective government, nor certainly much more a narrowly private interest, but above all and primarily to serve and secure the interests of society as a whole. This social totality and the wider public interest are what must prevail over private interest. And the private must give way in favour of the public regardless of whether private interests are served behind the public interest. Incidentally, or if in order to serve the public interest, this can be done by serving another private one. However, we must emphasize, to avoid misunderstandings, that the end in itself in any case should not be the serving of private interests but the pure interest of society as a whole.