The starting scenario is as follows: a developer obtains the urban planning certificate (certificat de urbanism) on the basis of a zonal urban plan (PUZ) approved by the local council, pays for the design and obtains the permits (avize). Before the building permit (autorizație de construire) is issued, the PUZ ceases to be valid: either the period for which it was approved expires, or the local council revokes the approving decision, considering it unlawful, or the administrative court annuls it. In addition, the applicable law changed as of 25 August 2026. Law no. 169/2026 on the Code of Spatial Planning, Urban Planning and Construction (‘the Urban Planning Code’), published in the Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), Part I, No 661 of 10 August 2026, repealed Law no. 350/2001 on spatial planning and urban planning and Law no. 50/1991 on the authorisation of construction works.

By Decision No 91 of 21 September 2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No 923 of 3 November 2026, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – panel for the resolution of points of law (‘ÎCCJ’) held that the validity of urban planning documentation is extended by operation of law for a permitting procedure already under way, even if the approving decision was subsequently revoked for unlawfulness. Under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision is binding on the courts from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

The decision interprets Article 56(5) of Law no. 350/2001 and Article 28(2) of its implementing methodological rules. In its reasoning, the ÎCCJ also relies on Article 2(2¹) of Law no. 50/1991, under which the permitting procedure begins with the filing of the application for the urban planning certificate. Although these acts have been repealed by the Urban Planning Code, the decision remains relevant for pending procedures. To understand what the decision means for a specific project, three situations must be distinguished: revocation of the PUZ, its annulment by a court and the application of the Code’s transitional provisions.

1. Revocation, annulment, transitional provisions: three different questions

Revocation and annulment of the decision approving the PUZ raise the same issue: whether, and from what point, the PUZ still has effect. The transitional provisions of the Urban Planning Code concern a distinct matter, namely: which law applies to permitting procedures under way (begun before 25 August 2026)? The two levels complement each other but must not be confused; they must be analysed separately.

Revocation of the PUZ by the local council

  • who decides: the local council that approved the PUZ, by means of a new decision, as a rule because the PUZ breaches higher-ranking urban planning documentation (for example, the general urban plan, PUG);
  • nature of the act: the decision approving the PUZ is a normative (regulatory) administrative act (ÎCCJ Decision No 12/2021, delivered in an appeal in the interest of the law); the issuing authority cannot ask the court to annul its own normative act (ÎCCJ Decision No 74/2023), so revocation is the route resorted to;
  • effects: according to Decision No 91/2026, revocation cannot retroactively remove the effects already produced in favour of a beneficiary acting in good faith; as a consequence, permitting procedures begun while the PUZ was in force may continue on the basis of it.

Annulment of the approving decision by the court

  • who decides: the administrative court, seised by an aggrieved person or by the prefect, in the exercise of review of legality; normative administrative acts may be challenged at any time [Article 11(4) of Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004 (‘Law no. 554/2004’)];
  • effects: the final judgment annulling the PUZ is generally binding and has effect only for the future (Article 23 of Law no. 554/2004); under the Urban Planning Code [Article 361(7)], once a PUZ has been annulled, the provisions of the PUG in force become directly applicable;
  • urban planning certificates and building permits already issued are not automatically annulled: according to CCR Decision No 208/2025, the legality of each individual act is assessed case by case, by reference to the law in force on the date of its issue;
  • Decision No 91/2026 does not concern this situation; its reasoning may, however, be relied on by the beneficiary for two reasons. First, the ÎCCJ holds that the validity of urban planning documentation may be affected both by expiry and by revocation or annulment. Secondly, the entire solution is based on applying mutatis mutandis, in the field of revocation, the reasoning developed by the CCR for the judicial annulment of normative acts.

The transitional provisions of the Urban Planning Code

  • what they establish: the law applicable to permitting procedures begun before 25 August 2026; they do not govern the applicability of the PUZ;
  • the rule: procedures for the preparation, endorsement and approval of urban planning documentation remain subject to the law in force on the date they were initiated, and urban planning certificates issued previously remain valid (Article 582 of the Urban Planning Code);
  • the consequence: for permitting procedures begun under Law no. 50/1991, Decision No 91/2026 remains directly applicable; for procedures begun subsequently, Article 76 of the Urban Planning Code on the approval and effects of the PUZ applies.

2. What the ÎCCJ decided in Decision No 91/2026

The referral was made by the Constanța Court of Appeal, in an appeal on points of law (recurs) brought in a dispute concerning the authority’s refusal to issue a building permit for a building comprising multi-unit housing and commercial premises. The urban planning certificate had been issued in October 2020 on the basis of a PUZ approved by the local council. That PUZ had changed the designated use of the area and set urban planning indicators higher than those in the PUG. The beneficiary filed the application for the building permit in September 2021. Subsequently, following a prior administrative complaint (plângere prealabilă) lodged by certain aggrieved persons, the local council revoked the decision approving the PUZ, finding that the plan breached the PUG and the General Urban Planning Regulation. The Tribunal dismissed the developer’s action seeking an order compelling the mayor to issue the permit, finding that the building breached the PUG and that a permit issued in those circumstances would be voidable.

The Court of Appeal referred the matter to the ÎCCJ for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law: whether Article 56(5) of Law no. 350/2001, Article 28(2) of its implementing methodological rules and Article 2(2) and (2¹) of Law no. 50/1991 are to be interpreted as extending the validity of the urban planning documentation in force on the date on which the permitting procedure began, where, after that date but before the building permit is issued, the local authority revokes the administrative act approving the urban planning documentation on grounds of unlawfulness.

The ÎCCJ answered in the affirmative, holding that: ‘The validity of the urban planning documentation in force on the date on which the permitting procedure began is extended by operation of law also where, after that date but before the building permit is issued, the local public authority has revoked the administrative act approving the urban planning documentation on grounds of unlawfulness.’

The operative part refers generically to ‘urban planning documentation’, so the solution covers, in principle, the PUG and the PUD (detailed urban plan) as well, not only the PUZ.

3. The reasoning of the supreme court

Under Article 56(5)(a) of Law no. 350/2001, the validity of urban planning documentation is extended by operation of law, for investments begun during the period of validity, until their completion, if the permitting procedure was begun, in accordance with the law, during that period. The ÎCCJ held as follows:

  • the notion of ‘validity’ concerns the capacity of the act to produce legal effects, a capacity that may cease through expiry of the time limit, but also through annulment or revocation; the provision is therefore not confined to expiry of the PUZ;
  • as the reference point, the law requires that the permitting procedure have begun during the period of validity of the documentation, not that the documentation remain in force until the permit is issued;
  • the permitting procedure is a single procedure: it begins with the application for the urban planning certificate, which establishes the technical regime of the property, and ends with the issue of the building permit;
  • the unlawfulness of the normative act, established subsequently, cannot retroactively eliminate the legal effects already produced for the benefit of a third party acting in good faith; the ÎCCJ relied, by analogy, on Constitutional Court Decision No 208/2025 and on the principle of non-retroactivity;
  • the provision seeks to protect investments under way and the beneficiary’s legitimate expectations in the urban planning documentation which, on the date the procedure began, enjoyed the presumption of legality.

4. What the decision does not say

The decision has a limited scope, and its effects should not be overstated:

  • the ÎCCJ did not examine the legality of the revocation of the PUZ and did not order the issue of the building permit in the case at hand; it ruled solely on the point of law referred to it;
  • the decision does not create an unconditional right to a permit: the issuing authority continues to verify the other statutory conditions (complete documentation, permits and approvals, the right over the land);
  • the protection covers only projects for which the permitting procedure began while the urban planning documentation was in force; a revoked PUZ can no longer be used for new projects;
  • the decision concerns revocation by the local authority; the scenario of annulment of the PUZ by the administrative court was not decided, although the reasoning of the decision may also be relied on in that case;
  • the situation in which the urban planning certificate was applied for before the revocation but issued after that date is not settled, since the operative part of the decision, which refers to the date on which the procedure began, supports the extension of validity, but some of the reasoning refers to the date on which the certificate was issued.

5. When the permitting procedure begins

The key moment is the commencement of the permitting procedure. Under Article 2(2¹) of Law no. 50/1991, the procedure for authorising construction works begins with the filing of the application for the urban planning certificate. What matters is the date on which that application is filed, not the date on which the documentation for the building permit is submitted.

In practice, the beneficiary must be able to prove the date on which the application for the urban planning certificate was filed and that the PUZ was in force on that date. The principal evidence is therefore the application for the urban planning certificate, bearing its registration number and date with the issuing authority. Also useful are the decision approving the PUZ, with its publication date, and the revocation decision, showing that the revocation occurred after the procedure began.

The urban planning certificate records the technical regime of the property according to the urban planning documentation in force on the date of its issue, so the entire procedure is conducted under that documentation. Subsequent revocation of the documentation cannot fragment the procedure and subject its stages to different legal regimes, in the absence of an express statutory provision to that effect.

Have you been refused a permit after the PUZ was revoked or annulled? We review the documents and establish whether the permitting procedure can continue.

Book a consultation

6. Annulment of the PUZ by the court: what happens to certificates and permits

In Decision No 10/2015, the ÎCCJ had held that a judgment annulling a normative administrative act also affects the individual acts issued on the basis of it, if they were being challenged in proceedings pending on the date of publication of the judgment. After several PUZs were annulled, this interpretation was relied on to challenge building permits issued on the basis of them, including for buildings under construction.

In Decision No 208/2025, the Constitutional Court held that Article 23 of Law no. 554/2004, as interpreted by ÎCCJ Decision No 10/2015, is unconstitutional. The Court held that the legality of an individual act is assessed by reference to the law in force on the date of its issue, and that the courts must examine each case individually. Annulment of the PUZ does not, in itself, render permits already issued unlawful.

The Urban Planning Code now confirms that permits issued in breach of statutory provisions may be annulled by the administrative court [Article 360(2)] and allows the court to order, at the holder’s request and on the basis of a technical expert report, that constructions built under an annulled permit be retained, where they were built in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and urban planning regulations and meet the fundamental quality requirements for construction (Article 364). For permitting procedures under way on the date the PUZ is annulled, the Urban Planning Code contains no express rule. It merely provides that, after annulment, the provisions of the PUG in force become directly applicable [Article 361(7)] and that, after the judicial annulment of an unjustified refusal, the authority may not reject the new application by relying on subsequent amendments to the urban planning documentation [Article 363(2)].

7. The transitional provisions of the Urban Planning Code

The Urban Planning Code entered into force on 25 August 2026. The regime of legal situations pending on the date of its entry into force is established mainly by Article 582:

  • procedures for the preparation, endorsement and approval of urban planning documentation initiated before the entry into force of the Urban Planning Code remain subject to the law in force on the date they were initiated [Article 582(1)]; the date of initiation is the date on which the administrative act on the basis of which the procedure is initiated is brought to the attention of third parties [Article 582(6)];
  • urban planning certificates issued before the entry into force of the Urban Planning Code remain valid, and building permits are issued on the basis of the permits (avize) required by those certificates, in accordance with the law in force on the date the certificates were issued [Article 582(4)].

Article 582 does not expressly provide that a permitting procedure begun under Law no. 50/1991 remains, as a whole, subject to that law, but that solution follows from the principle tempus regit actum and is confirmed by the Clarifications of the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration (MDLPA) on the application of the Urban Planning Code. According to the MDLPA, all applications registered up to and including 24 August 2026 are determined on the basis of the legislation in force on the date of registration, namely Law no. 50/1991, Law no. 350/2001 and their implementing rules, irrespective of the subject matter of the application and the stage of the procedure.

Accordingly, for permitting procedures begun before 25 August 2026 on the basis of an urban planning certificate issued under Law no. 50/1991 and of urban planning documentation approved under Law no. 350/2001, Decision No 91/2026 remains directly applicable. This is also the situation in the dispute that gave rise to the referral to the ÎCCJ.

8. What the Urban Planning Code provides for new projects

Under the new legislation too, the permitting procedure begins with the application for the urban planning certificate (Article 249 of the Urban Planning Code).

Under the former legislation (Law no. 50/1991), the urban planning certificate was defined as an information instrument and, as a rule, could not be challenged separately from the building permit. Under the Urban Planning Code, the urban planning certificate becomes an individual administrative act, except for one issued solely for information purposes. For new projects, this feature means an additional risk for investors, since third parties may challenge it directly. As an individual act that has entered the civil circuit, the certificate can no longer be revoked by the issuing authority but only annulled by the court, and third parties may challenge it only within the time limits laid down in Article 11 of Law no. 554/2004.

For permitting procedures begun after 25 August 2026, the Urban Planning Code retains the logic of former Article 56(5) of Law no. 350/2001:

  • the provisions of the PUZ apply until they are updated or amended by urban planning documentation of equal or higher rank, and the validity of the PUZ is extended by operation of law until completion of the implementation of projects for which the permitting procedure began during the period of validity [Article 76(10)];
  • the approving decision may set a period of validity for the PUZ; its expiry does not affect investments for which the permitting procedure was initiated, in accordance with the law, by the date of expiry [Article 76(11) and (12)];
  • as a rule, urban planning documentation does not have a limited period of validity but remains valid until a new amending documentation of equal or higher rank is approved; local authorities review whether it is up to date every 5 years (Article 109);
  • where a PUZ is annulled by the administrative court, the provisions of the PUG in force or of the PUZ for the protected built-up area become directly applicable [Article 361(7)].

The Urban Planning Code does not expressly govern the effects of revoking the decision approving the PUZ on permitting procedures under way. The wording of Article 76(10) is, however, close to that of former Article 56(5), and the ÎCCJ’s arguments concerning the meaning of ‘validity’, the single nature of the permitting procedure and the protection of the beneficiary acting in good faith hold good, in principle, under the Urban Planning Code as well. The position is less certain in the case of judicial annulment, for which Article 361(7) of the Urban Planning Code provides for the direct application of the PUG in force. Authorities could rely on that provision to refuse to extend the validity of an annulled PUZ, although it does not distinguish between new procedures and those under way.

Under the Urban Planning Code, a PUD may be a normative act or an individual act, depending on its characteristics [Article 110(1)]. An individual administrative act that has entered the civil circuit can no longer be revoked but only annulled by the court, at the request of the issuing authority, within one year [Article 1(6) of Law no. 554/2004].

9. Three practical examples

  • The urban planning certificate was applied for in March 2025, and the local council revokes the PUZ in May 2026: the procedure remains subject to the old law (Article 582 of the Urban Planning Code), and Decision No 91/2026 applies directly; revocation is not, in itself, a ground for refusing to issue the building permit.
  • The PUZ is finally annulled by the court in 2026, and the building permit issued on the basis of it in 2024 is challenged by a neighbour: the annulment has effect only for the future, and the court assesses the legality of the permit by reference to the law and documentation in force on the date of issue (CCR Decision No 208/2025).
  • The urban planning certificate was applied for in October 2026, under the Urban Planning Code, and the PUZ is revoked before the permit is issued: Article 76(10) of the Urban Planning Code applies; in the absence of an express rule on revocation, the beneficiary may rely on the reasoning of Decision No 91/2026.

10. What investors can do

  • Build your evidence file from the outset. Keep proof of the date on which you filed the application for the urban planning certificate and check which urban planning documentation was in force on that date.
  • Monitor local council meetings and litigation concerning the PUZ on the basis of which the certificate was issued, including actions for annulment brought by third parties or by the prefect. Normative acts may be challenged at any time [Article 11(4) of Law no. 554/2004], so the age of the PUZ does not rule out the risk. The beneficiary may file an application for accessory intervention in support of the authority, in order to defend the legality of the PUZ.
  • Check the period of validity of the urban planning certificate and of the permits (avize): extension of the validity of the PUZ does not automatically extend those periods. If the certificate expires, the authority may argue that a new application triggers a new procedure, governed by the documentation in force at that time. File the application for the building permit as soon as possible and apply for extensions in good time, if necessary.
  • If you receive a refusal to issue the permit based on the revocation of the PUZ, rely on Decision No 91/2026 in the prior administrative complaint and, subsequently, in the action before the administrative courts. The arguments must be constructed carefully, because the authority will rely on Article 361(7) of the Urban Planning Code.
  • If a permit already issued is challenged after the PUZ has been annulled, rely on CCR Decision No 208/2025, which held that annulment of the normative act does not automatically affect individual acts validly issued on the basis of it, and, where appropriate, ask for the construction to be retained on the basis of a technical expert report (Article 364 of the Urban Planning Code).
  • If the PUZ is revoked, consider whether to challenge the revocation decision. It is a separate administrative act, which may be challenged before the administrative courts.
  • Allocate the risk in the contract. In transactions for the acquisition of projects, a number of contractual protections are recommended: representations and warranties as to the legality of the PUZ and the absence of litigation or prior administrative complaints; issue of the building permit as a condition precedent; price adjustment mechanisms for the event that the PUZ is revoked or annulled before the building permit is obtained.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between revocation and annulment of a PUZ?

Revocation is decided by the very local council that approved the PUZ, by means of a subsequent decision. Annulment is ordered by the administrative court, at the request of an aggrieved person or of the prefect, and has effect only for the future. ÎCCJ Decision No 91/2026 concerns revocation.

What does ÎCCJ Decision No 91/2026 provide?

The decision holds that the validity of the urban planning documentation in force at the start of the permitting procedure is extended by operation of law even if, before the building permit is issued, the local authority revokes the act approving the documentation for unlawfulness. The decision is binding on the courts from its publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No 923 of 3 November 2026.

Can I obtain the building permit if the PUZ has been revoked?

Yes, if the permitting procedure began while the PUZ was in force and the other statutory conditions are met. Subsequent revocation is not, in itself, a ground for refusal. If the authority nevertheless refuses, the beneficiary may lodge a prior administrative complaint and then bring an action before the administrative courts, relying on Decision No 91/2026.

What happens to the building permit if the PUZ is annulled by the court?

The permit is not automatically annulled. Following CCR Decision No 208/2025, the legality of the permit is assessed case by case, by reference to the law in force on the date of issue. The provisions of the PUG become applicable to the area concerned. If the permit is nevertheless annulled, the court may order the construction to be retained on the basis of a technical expert report.

Does the decision apply after the entry into force of the new Urban Planning Code?

The decision applies directly to procedures begun before 25 August 2026, which remain subject to the old law. For procedures begun subsequently, the Urban Planning Code contains a similar rule on the extension by operation of law of the validity of the PUZ (Article 76(10)). Accordingly, the reasoning of the decision is, in principle, also applicable under the new legislation, although the Urban Planning Code does not expressly govern the effects of revocation.

Adesman & Asociații assists investors and developers in building permit procedures and in administrative litigation concerning urban planning documentation, urban planning certificates and building permits. On the new rules for urban planning certificates and building permits, you can also read our analysis of Law no. 169/2026. Find out more about our real estate, construction and infrastructure law practice.

Is your project blocked because a PUZ has been revoked or annulled? Talk to our real estate law team.

Contact us

This material is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable legal regime must be analysed in the light of the specific circumstances of each project and the legislation in force at the time of the analysis.