Updated on 19 October 2026
Until the publication in the Official Gazette (Monitorul Oficial) of Decision no. 643 of 7 November 2024, an unlawfully issued building permit could be challenged, under Article 12 of Law no. 50/1991 on the authorisation of construction works (“Law no. 50/1991”), only by the prefect, following an inspection by the State Construction Inspectorate (Inspectoratul de Stat în Construcții). By Decision no. 643 of 7 November 2024, the Constitutional Court found that limitation unconstitutional, as it does not allow aggrieved persons to challenge a building permit or a demolition permit before the administrative courts. Since 25 August 2026, Law no. 50/1991 has been repealed and replaced by the Code on Spatial Planning, Urban Planning and Construction (Law no. 169/2026). We explain what the Court decided, what applies today and what it means for developers, in particular for energy projects.
What Article 12 of Law no. 50/1991 provided
Paragraph (1) provided that building or demolition permits issued in breach of the law may be annulled by the administrative court on application by the prefect, lodged following an inspection carried out by the State Construction Inspectorate. Paragraph (2) allowed the court to order, on the prefect’s application, the suspension of the permit and the halting of works pending determination of the case on the merits.
In practice, the provision was relied on to dismiss actions brought by private persons against building permits for lack of standing (lipsa calității procesuale active).
What the Constitutional Court decided
1. The prefect’s exclusive standing infringes the right of access to justice
The Court held that a person aggrieved in a right or legitimate interest by an administrative act is entitled to have that act annulled, under Article 52(1) of the Constitution. Reserving the action exclusively to the prefect deprived aggrieved persons of that right.
2. The act challenged by the prefect is suspended by operation of law
Under Article 123(5) of the Constitution, the act challenged by the prefect is suspended by operation of law. A provision that leaves suspension to the discretion of the court is contrary to that rule, and Article 12(2) of Law no. 50/1991 was therefore also held unconstitutional.
3. Effects of the decision
Decisions of the Constitutional Court are generally binding and have effect only for the future (ex nunc). Under Article 147(1) of the Constitution, provisions found to be unconstitutional cease to have effect 45 days after publication of the decision in the Official Gazette (Monitorul Oficial) if, within that period, Parliament does not bring them into line with the Constitution. The decision was published in the Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial al României), Part I, no. 41 of 17 January 2025.
What applies today: the Urban Planning Code (Law no. 169/2026)
Since 25 August 2026, the authorisation of construction works has been governed by the Code on Spatial Planning, Urban Planning and Construction (the “Urban Planning Code”), which replaces Law no. 50/1991 and Law no. 350/2001 on spatial planning and urban planning, as subsequently amended and supplemented. Procedures commenced before that date remain, as a rule, governed by the former law, and urban planning certificates (certificate de urbanism) and permits issued previously remain valid.
Under Article 365 of the Urban Planning Code, urban planning disputes are to be heard expeditiously by panels specialising in spatial planning, urban planning and construction authorisation; until such panels are established, those disputes are determined by the existing administrative litigation sections of the courts. Under Article 360(2) of the Urban Planning Code, building, demolition, alteration or regularisation permits issued in breach of the law may be annulled by the administrative courts in accordance with Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation. To facilitate the application of that law, the Urban Planning Code expressly classifies the building permit as an individual administrative act.
Accordingly, under Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation, any person who considers themselves aggrieved in a right or legitimate interest may seek the annulment of a building permit after exhausting the prior administrative complaint procedure (procedura plângerii prealabile). The prior administrative complaint may be lodged within 30 days from the date on which the act was communicated to the aggrieved person to whom it is addressed and, in the case of a third party, from the date on which that third party became aware, by any means, of the content of the contested act. For good cause, the prior administrative complaint may also be lodged after the 30-day time limit, but no later than 6 months from the date of issue of the act, in the case of the aggrieved person to whom the act is addressed, or from the date on which the third party became aware, by any means, of its content.
The action before the administrative court may then be brought within 6 months. The 6-month time limit for an application for annulment of an individual administrative act runs from: (i) the date of communication of the reply to the prior administrative complaint, (ii) the date of communication of the unjustified refusal to deal with the request, (iii) the date of expiry of the time limit for determining the prior administrative complaint or, as the case may be, of the statutory time limit for determining the request, or (iv) the date on which the content of the act became known, where a prior administrative complaint is no longer mandatory. In addition, it should be borne in mind that, under Article 7(5) of Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation, a prior administrative complaint is no longer mandatory where the act has entered the civil circuit (circuitul civil) and has produced its effects, which is frequently the case for permits on the basis of which works have commenced.
The law provides that, for good cause, in the case of an individual administrative act, the application for annulment may also be brought after the 6-month time limit, but no later than one year from the date of communication of the act, the date on which it became known, the date on which the request was lodged or the date on which the conciliation minutes were drawn up, as the case may be.
Building permits may still be suspended by the court, under the same conditions, pursuant to Articles 14 and 15 of Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation, where the requirements of a duly justified case (caz bine justificat) and imminent harm (pagubă iminentă) are met. The prefect may challenge the permit under Article 3 of the same law, and the contested act is suspended by operation of law pending determination of the case.
What this means for energy projects
Solar photovoltaic and wind farms, power lines, transformer substations and battery storage systems require a building permit to be obtained before they can be built. Extending the right to challenge the permit to any person who considers themselves aggrieved increases the litigation risk, especially for large projects located near residential areas or in protected areas.
- Project timeline. An action for annulment, accompanied by an application for suspension, may halt works pending determination of the case. If the action is brought by the prefect, suspension takes effect by operation of law.
- Financing. Banks and investors usually require confirmation that the time limits for challenge have expired or that there is no litigation. Since, for third parties, time runs from the date on which they became aware of the permit rather than from its issue, documenting the date of the last publicity formality becomes essential for financial close.
- Transactions. When acquiring a project under development (a “ready-to-build” project), the legal due diligence must verify the lawfulness of the permit, the urban planning documentation on which it is based and any pending challenge or litigation.
- Environmental endorsement (aviz de mediu). Challenges and litigation often also target the environmental consents on which the permit is based. A defect in those consents may also affect the building permit.
Developing an energy project? We review the building permit and the urban planning documentation before works begin or before financial close.
What developers and investors should do
- Verify, before works commence, whether the permit and the urban planning documentation on which it is based comply with the law applicable on the date of issue.
- Bring the permit to the attention of the public by displaying the site board identifying the project (panou de identificare a investiției), publishing it on the website of the issuing public authority, noting it in the land register (carte funciară) for the property and publishing it in a widely circulated newspaper, so as to be able to establish a clear point in time from which the time limits for challenge are calculated, since the content of the building permit is deemed to have been brought to the attention of the public on the date on which the last publicity formality is completed.
- Monitor any prior administrative complaints addressed to the issuing authority; they usually precede court proceedings.
- For permits issued before 25 August 2026, determine, together with a lawyer, the law applicable to the procedure and to any disputes.
- Include in financing and acquisition agreements clauses addressing the risk of a challenge to the permit.
Frequently asked questions
Can I challenge my neighbour’s building permit?
Yes, if the permit infringes one of your rights or legitimate interests, for example through failure to observe the required distances from your property. The action is brought before the administrative court, as a rule after a prior administrative complaint addressed to the authority that issued the permit.
Does a permit issued to your neighbour affect your property? We will tell you whether, and until when, you can challenge it.
What is the time limit for challenging the permit?
The prior administrative complaint may be lodged within 30 days from the date on which the third party became aware, by any means, of the content of the contested act.
For good cause, the prior administrative complaint may also be lodged after the 30-day time limit, but no later than 6 months from the date on which the third party became aware, by any means, of the content of the building permit. The date of awareness is, as a rule, determined by reference to the last publicity formality for the permit.
Do works stop if the permit is challenged?
Not automatically, if the action is brought by a private person: that person must apply to the court for suspension of the permit and demonstrate a duly justified case and imminent harm. If the action is brought by the prefect, the permit is suspended by operation of law.
Does Law no. 50/1991 still apply?
Since 25 August 2026, Law no. 50/1991 has been replaced by the Urban Planning Code. It may remain relevant to procedures commenced, and permits obtained, before that date.
Does the CCR decision also apply to permits issued before its publication in the Official Gazette (Monitorul Oficial)?
The decision has effect for the future and, according to the Court’s case law, also applies to cases pending before the courts at the date of publication.
How we can help
The Adesman & Asociații team assists developers, investors and property owners in permitting procedures and in litigation concerning building permits. Find out more about our real estate, construction and infrastructure law and energy law practice.
Do you have a question about a building permit?
This material is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For an analysis of your specific situation, please contact us.
