The unity of legal system in the Republic of Serbia is prescribed by the express constitutional norm from Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, while Articles 194 and 195 of the Constitution regulate the question of the hierarchy of general legal acts, without which hierarchy we cannot talk about the unity of the legal order. When creating a system of rules that will regulate a given area, the legislator should strive to ensure that there are no significant deviations and mutually opposing legal norms among the various laws and by-law regulations within that legal area, but that there is one rounded and harmonious system of legal norms that comprehensively regulates one area of social life. However, as this high goal is not always possible or easy to achieve, since ancient times there have been rules by which conflicts of legal norms from different regulations are resolved - lex posterior derogat legi prior; lex specialis derogat legi generalis; lex superior derogat legi inferior. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the legislative chronology regarding the regulation of the restitution of confiscated property, in this area of legal regulation, the application of the mentioned rules can be questionable and problematic. This is due to the fact that the legislator, guided primarily by non-legal motives, decided to regulate the area of property restitution in a fragmented manner, by first passing special laws, which referred only to certain narrow circles of subjects, and then a few years later passed "general" law regulating the restitution of confiscated property and compensation, thus creating a situation where the lex generalis is also the lex posterior, and the lex specialis is the lex prior. This paper will look at the system of norms that regulate the restitution of property, the interrelationships of the legal texts that regulate this area, as well as the consequences that different legislative approaches have had or could have.