Commercial expropriation occurs when real property is compulsory acquired by a private operator. This phenomenon is relatively new and has been criticized not only because of the rules concerning compensation, but also from the point of view of permissibility. An intervention in the protection of property must fulfill the requirement of important public interest set out in RF 2 kap. 15 § in order for it to be allowed. There is no definition regarding what constitutes an important public interest, the only thing that exist is a non-exhaustive list in the preparatory work. This in turn has led to the creation of a broad discretion when it comes to determining what constitutes important public interests. The broad discretion is making it difficult for the courts to reject interventions due to the vague meaning of the requirement. Commercial expropriations are not exempted from the difficulty of determining the meaning of important public interests. What makes commercial expropriation controversial is the fact that it occurs under the same rules that govern communi-ty expropriation, although private operators are driven by profit motives. The problem is the fact that the requirement does not limit the possibilities of making interventions in the protection of property. The necessity of having a requirement without meaning that should limit the possibilities of making interventions can be questioned. The possibility of making all or nothing fit under the requirement can affect legal certainty in a negative way, because it becomes difficult to predict the reasons that may justify expropriation. In order for the requirement to work as a limitation, there must be a clarification concerning its meaning. A first step in that direction is to introduce a clarification in the preparatory work which would render the courts able to determine if the requirement is fulfilled.