Demolition order or stop-work order: how to gain time (suspension of enforcement) and what real chances you have to save your house

1. What types of acts you can receive: demolition order, contravention report, stop-work order

1.1. Typical acts issued in practice

In situations involving constructions without a permit or with deviations from the permitted project, public authorities (city hall, local police, ISC) usually issue several types of acts:

• Contravention report (minutes) – drawn up by inspectors under Law no. 50/1991 and Government Ordinance no. 2/2001 on the legal regime of contraventions. It records the alleged offence (for example, carrying out works without a building permit) and imposes a fine or other contravention sanctions.
• Demolition / removal order – an individual administrative act, usually issued by the mayor (or the president of the county council), ordering the demolition/removal of constructions built without a permit or in breach of the permit, under Articles 28–32 of Law no. 50/1991.
• Stop-work order – usually issued while construction is still ongoing; it records that the works are unauthorized or non-compliant and orders the immediate cessation of works.
• Demolition notice or other preliminary acts – in practice, some authorities issue a notice granting a deadline for “legalization” or voluntary demolition before the formal demolition order. The High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) has held, in a recourse in the interest of the law, that such notices may be preliminary acts, while the real act to be challenged is the demolition order itself, not the notice.

It is essential to understand what kind of act you are dealing with, because:

• the contravention report is challenged by a contravention complaint before the district court (judecătorie), usually within 15 days from communication (according to OG no. 2/2001);
• the demolition order is challenged in administrative litigation, under Law no. 554/2004, with a prior complaint and specific deadlines;
• the stop-work order, if it produces immediate legal effects, may also be challenged as an individual administrative act, separately or together with the demolition order.

1.2. Who is competent to issue these acts

Under Law no. 50/1991, competence is shared among several authorities:

• The mayor or the president of the county council – issues building and demolition permits and, later, demolition/removal orders for works executed without a permit or in breach of it (Articles 2 and 28–32);
• The State Inspectorate for Construction (ISC) – has inspection and oversight powers regarding compliance with construction rules, including applying sanctions and notifying other competent authorities; information on its role is available on the official website Inspectoratul de Stat în Construcții – ISC;
• Local police – in some cities, local police officers are empowered to establish contraventions in construction matters and to draw up contravention reports under Law no. 50/1991.

From here, a first line of attack arises: if the act was issued by an authority without competence (material or territorial), it may be unlawful.

2. Legal framework: Law no. 50/1991, Law no. 554/2004 and the Civil Code

2.1. Law no. 50/1991 – construction discipline

Law no. 50/1991 sets the basic rule: any construction work (with express exceptions) may only be carried out on the basis of a valid building permit or demolition permit, issued under the law (Articles 1–2).

For breaches of construction discipline, the law regulates:

• contraventions and sanctions (fines, stop-work orders, demolition of works executed without a permit or in breach of it – Article 26 and following);
• the stop-work measure (Article 28 – authorities may order that works cease until legalization or demolition);
• “legalization” (intrarea in legalitate) – a concept expressly used in law, notably in Article 28(3), allowing the offender a term to obtain the necessary permit; if they fail, demolition follows;
• court action for demolition – Article 32 obliges local authorities to bring an action before the courts for demolition in certain cases (for instance, where the owner does not voluntarily comply with the measures ordered).

The High Court of Cassation and Justice has clarified in detail how these texts apply, including through recourses in the interest of the law regarding the term in which demolition may be requested or the nature of measures ordered through administrative acts.

3. Contravention sanction vs. demolition: two different levels

One of the most frequent confusions is between:

• the contravention fine imposed by the report (minutes) under OG no. 2/2001 and Law no. 50/1991; and
• the demolition/removal measure ordered by the demolition order or by a court judgment.

Legally:

• paying the fine does NOT “legalize” the construction; you have only paid the contravention sanction, not solved the status of the building;
• the contravention report is challenged by a contravention complaint before the district court, usually within 15 days from communication (Article 31 OG no. 2/2001);
• the demolition order is challenged separately, in administrative litigation, following the procedure in Law no. 554/2004;
• even if you do not challenge the contravention report, you may, in principle, challenge the demolition order (and vice versa), although in practice the two levels are closely connected and the arguments must be coordinated.

For example, if through the contravention complaint you manage to prove that the report is unlawful (lack of description, lack of signature, lack of competence, time-barred sanction etc.), this may be a strong argument in the demolition litigation as well.

4. Critical deadlines: prior administrative complaint and action before the administrative court

4.1. Prior administrative complaint against the demolition order

As a rule, before going to court, you must file a prior administrative complaint (plangere prealabila) against the demolition order, under Article 7 of Law no. 554/2004.

Key elements:

• the general deadline is 30 days from communication of the demolition order;
• the complaint is addressed to the issuing authority (usually the mayor) or to the hierarchically superior authority, where such exists;
• the complaint should include grounds of unlawfulness (procedural or substantive) and, where possible, supporting documents (permits, title deeds, plans etc.).

If you fail to lodge the prior complaint in time, there is a real risk that the court action in administrative litigation will be dismissed as inadmissible or time-barred. There are nuances in case law (for example, situations where the prior complaint is not required), but these must be examined case by case, ideally with a lawyer specialized in administrative litigation.

4.2. Deadline for the action to annul the demolition order

Under Article 11 of Law no. 554/2004, the action by which you request annulment of an individual administrative act (such as a demolition order) must generally be filed within 6 months from:

• the date when the response to the prior complaint was communicated; or
• the date when the legal time limit for reply expired (if the authority remains silent); or
• the date when you became or should have become aware of the act and its effects, in some special cases.

For well-founded reasons, the law allows, within limits, filing the action beyond this 6-month period, but not later than one year. In practice, however, if you are looking for a reasonable chance in a “challenge demolition order issued by city hall” type of case, it is prudent to stay within the 6-month timeframe, calculated together with your lawyer.

4.3. Coordination with the contravention complaint

In parallel, the contravention report imposing the fine for works without a permit must usually be challenged within 15 days from communication by a contravention complaint before the district court (Article 31 OG no. 2/2001).

In many cases it is advisable:

• to file both a contravention complaint (against the report) and a prior complaint + administrative court action (against the demolition order);
• to request, where possible, suspension of enforcement of the demolition order, in order to gain time until a decision is reached on the merits.

5. How to request suspension of enforcement of the demolition order

5.1. Why suspension matters: gaining time, not a final solution

Suspension of enforcement of the administrative act means that the demolition order cannot be enforced for a temporary period (until a certain date or until the court rules on the merits). It is not annulment; it does not “erase” the act, but it gives you time:

• to prepare your defence on the merits;
• to obtain technical expert reports and planning documentation;
• to explore, where feasible, legalization (obtaining a subsequent permit covering the works already executed).

Without a suspension request, the authority may proceed with demolition or with enforcement works long before the court rules on the lawfulness of the demolition order.

5.2. Provisional suspension (Article 14) and suspension pending the merits (Article 15) – Law no. 554/2004

Law no. 554/2004 provides two main mechanisms:

• Article 14 – suspension before filing the action on the merits: once you have filed the prior complaint, you may lodge a stand-alone action for suspension of enforcement of the demolition order; the court rules in an expedited procedure on suspension until the annulment action is filed and decided;
• Article 15 – suspension together with the annulment action: you can file the suspension request either separately or as part of the annulment action; the court will usually rule on suspension before or together with the merits.

In both cases you must prove, cumulatively:

• a well-justified case – factual and legal circumstances casting serious doubt on the lawfulness of the demolition order (for example, lack of proper reasoning, breach of applicable planning documents, lack of competence, failure to consider legalization options, misinterpretation of the existing permit etc.); and
• imminent damage – the real and foreseeable risk of losing your home or the premises where your business operates, major costs of relocation, serious disruption of your economic activity, and so on.

Courts have consistently held that mere dissatisfaction with the act or vague references to hypothetical damage are not enough; you need concrete arguments and at least basic evidence showing that immediate demolition would cause disproportionate and possibly irreparable harm.

5.3. Useful evidence and arguments for suspending demolition

To increase the chances of a successful suspension of demolition of the construction under Law no. 554/2004, it is recommended that you build your case together with an administrative and planning law lawyer. In practice, the following are useful:

• identifying clear lawfulness defects in the demolition order (for example, missing or incorrect legal basis, lack of reasoning, confusion between the contravention sanction and the administrative measure, disregard for applicable planning documents, procedural errors);
• demonstrating that the deviation from the permit is minor (or that there is a permit and only a debatable interpretation of regulations), while demolition is an extremely harsh measure;
• proving imminent damage – for instance, the building is the family’s only home or essential for the company’s activity (head office, production space, showroom);
• linking the request to ongoing legalization steps (permit application filed, planning documentation being prepared, discussions with the technical department etc.).

In high-profile cases such as the “Cathedral Plaza” building in Bucharest, courts have analysed precisely the proportionality between massive administrative demolition measures and the need for a thorough review of the lawfulness of the initial building permit, some judgments holding that immediate administrative demolition of a substantial construction, before final clarification of legality, may justify suspension of enforcement.

6. “Legalization”: when you can actually save the construction

6.1. What “legalization” means under Law no. 50/1991

“Legalization” (intrarea in legalitate) is not just a figure of speech; it is expressly used in Law no. 50/1991. For example, Article 28 allows authorities to grant a term for legalization following a contravention, and if by the end of that term the required permit is not obtained, demolition becomes the next step.

In practical terms, legalization means:

• preparing technical and planning documentation (DTAC and, where necessary, PUZ/PUD) consistent with the applicable planning rules (General Urban Plan – PUG, Zonal Plan – PUZ, Local Regulations – RLU);
• obtaining, based on this documentation, a subsequent building permit that covers works already executed;
• complying with structural safety, fire safety, environmental and other technical standards.

If legalization is achieved before enforcement of the demolition order, this can be used in court as an argument that demolition is no longer proportionate and that the purpose of the law (ensuring discipline in construction) has been achieved through subsequent authorization.

6.2. When legalization is realistically possible

Legalization is realistic mainly when:

• the building complies with or can be brought to comply with planning regulations (height, setbacks, plot coverage and density, alignment);
• the land is not subject to absolute prohibitions (public green areas, protected zones with strict bans, special protection areas);
• there are no insurmountable objections from neighbours or serious infringements of their rights (excessive overshadowing, blocked access, breach of easements etc.);
• from a structural perspective, the building can be certified as safe (it is not dangerous and does not breach essential technical standards).

In such cases, the strategy can be two-pronged:

• pursuing obtaining the permit and effectively entering into legality;
• using this as an argument in the suspension request and, later, in the action to annul the demolition order (proportionality, abuse of power, lack of a real assessment of legalization options).

6.3. When legalization is NOT possible

There are also situations where legalization is realistically impossible or extremely unlikely:

• the construction is on public domain land or on land that you do not own (unlawful occupation);
• the building seriously breaches planning rules (for example, an 8-storey block in a single-family housing area), and planning documents cannot be changed to accommodate it;
• there have been breaches of mandatory safety rules (structure, fire safety) that cannot be remedied without major removal or reconstruction;
• there are final court judgments already ordering demolition or finding the construction unlawful.

In such cases, the lawyer’s role is not to promise “salvation at all costs”, but to assess whether at least the damage can be limited (for instance by negotiating realistic deadlines, phasing works, recovering part of the investment, or seeking compensation).

7. Common mistakes of owners and small developers

From the practice of planning and administrative disputes, several mistakes appear repeatedly when people receive a demolition order or a stop-work order:

• ignoring deadlines – owners miss the 15-day deadline for the contravention complaint or the 30-day deadline for the prior complaint, hoping the matter will be “settled amicably”;
• purely informal negotiations – relying on verbal assurances (“don’t worry, we won’t demolish”) that have no legal value once enforcement begins;
• carrying out new works during litigation – continuing or extending the construction after the demolition order has been issued severely weakens your position and may attract new sanctions;
• fragmented reactions – challenging only the contravention report but not the demolition order (or the other way around), without a coherent strategy;
• lack of evidence – not keeping technical paperwork, not requesting the full file from the authorities, not obtaining technical reports in time;
• turning to a lawyer too late – seeking legal help only after deadlines have expired or after the authority has already started enforcement works.

A useful step is to consult early on with a lawyer specialized in administrative and planning law, such as the services described on the page dedicated to administrative law and planning law, in order to build a coherent strategy.

8. The role of technical expertise and planning documentation

In disputes such as “stop-work order for building without permit – lawyer” or “challenge demolition order issued by city hall”, law and technical aspects go hand in hand. Courts are not satisfied with general statements; they want to see:

• what the construction looks like in reality (surfaces, height, placement on the plot);
• what the PUG/PUZ/PUD and local planning rules provide for the area;
• whether there are structural risks, fire safety issues, impact on neighbours, and so on.

8.1. Useful evidence in administrative litigation

In a demolition case before an administrative court, it is helpful to have from the outset the following evidence:

• title deeds for the land and the building (sale-purchase contracts, title documents, land registry extracts);
• building or demolition permit, planning certificates and all permits/approvals if they exist;
• architectural and structural plans, bills of quantities, drawings;
• photos and videos of the construction and surroundings, ideally taken at different times to show the evolution and context;
• correspondence with authorities (requests for information, responses, official letters, notices);
• technical expert reports (architecture, structure, planning), either private or court-appointed, showing that:
  • the works comply with planning rules or the deviation is minor;
  • there are no structural or safety risks;
  • the existence of the construction does not seriously harm neighbours or the public interest.
• planning studies or reports regarding the area (including PUG/PUZ extracts) that can help show that demolition would be a disproportionate measure compared to the objectives of the law.

Courts examine these documents together with legal arguments in order to determine whether there is a well-justified case and imminent damage justifying suspension and whether the demolition order is lawful on the merits.

9. Typical scenarios: construction without any permit vs. minor deviations from the permit

When assessing your real chances of saving the construction, the factual situation is crucial. A few common scenarios:

• Scenario 1 – construction without any building permit
  This is the most sensitive area. The law starts from the premise that executing works without a permit is a serious breach, and demolition is a natural consequence, especially where planning rules do not allow legalization. In such cases, you should focus on:
  • any procedural defects in the demolition order (competence, reasoning, proportionality);
  • possible legalization options where planning rules allow it;
  • limiting damage (deadlines, instalments, compensation, partial removal etc.).
• Scenario 2 – there is a permit, but with minor deviations (attic, balcony, small extension)
  Where you have a building permit and deviations are minor (for example, a few additional square meters, a slightly higher attic, enclosing a balcony), your chances to obtain suspension and even annulment of the demolition order increase, particularly if:
  • you can prove that the deviations still comply with planning rules;
  • the demolition order does not address proportionality (why total demolition and not partial remediation?);
  • the authority has applied different treatment in similar situations (discrimination, unequal treatment).
• Scenario 3 – interior or finishing works
  Some interior alterations or repair works may, under certain conditions, be exempt from the permit requirement (depending on the current wording of Law no. 50/1991 and its implementing rules). If the demolition order targets such works, there may be strong arguments for annulment.
• Scenario 4 – construction on land with special status (green area, public domain)
  Here, the chances of “saving” the building are significantly lower. In practice, the focus is on:
  • possible compensation claims (if you acted in good faith and were misled by authorities);
  • negotiating realistic deadlines and modalities for enforcement;
  • limiting material losses as far as possible.

10. Why specialized legal advice matters: stop-work and demolition cases in Bucharest and across Romania

Disputes such as “stop-work order for building without permit – lawyer” or “demolition order – construction lawyer in Bucharest” combine:

• administrative and administrative-litigation law;
• civil law (property, accession, easements);
• technical rules on planning and construction.

A lawyer specialized in administrative and planning law will not limit their role to drafting a standard claim. They will:

• analyse all documents (contravention report, demolition order, permits, planning documents);
• check deadlines for the prior complaint, administrative court action and contravention complaint;
• propose a step-by-step strategy: information requests, prior complaint, suspension request, annulment action, possible negotiations;
• coordinate technical expert reports and work with architects and planners;
• represent you before administrative courts and district courts (for contraventions).

If you are facing a demolition order or a stop-work order, you may find more practical references in articles on administrative litigation and disputes with city hall, such as
the guide on suing the Government or city hall or
the article on challenging PUZ/PUD.
If necessary, you can start with an initial consultation to decide whether it is worthwhile to invest time and money in a complex demolition dispute.

When choosing a lawyer in Bucharest or other cities, you may also find useful the general guide
“How to look for a lawyer in Bucharest”.

11. Concrete steps as soon as you receive a demolition order

If you are in the classic “I received a demolition order – what do I do?” situation, the following steps can help you avoid losing critical deadlines:

• Check the date of communication – note the date on the acknowledgment of receipt or the date when you collected the envelope from the post office; deadlines for the prior complaint and the action start from this date;
• Gather all documents – contravention report, demolition order, permit (if any), planning certificates, title deeds, correspondence with city hall or ISC;
• Request the full file from the authority – submit a written request under the Freedom of Information Act (Law no. 544/2001) for copies of planning documents, notes, internal reports, approvals and other documents underpinning the order;
• Consult a lawyer quickly – ideally a lawyer specialized in administrative and planning law, to review the type of acts, deadlines and possible defects;
• File the prior complaint – within the legal deadline (usually 30 days), with legal and technical arguments, not just emotional pleas;
• Prepare the contravention complaint – if the contravention report is questionable, do not miss the 15-day deadline for challenging it;
• Assess the opportunity of a suspension request – especially if there is a real risk that the authority will proceed swiftly to demolition;
• Do not carry out further works – do not continue or extend construction; any additional works will weaken your case in court and may lead to new sanctions;
• Document imminent damage – costs, location, family or business situation, in order to show the court that immediate demolition would be disproportionate.

12. Conclusions: what real chances you have to save your house

The honest answer is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Your chances of saving the construction depend on:

• the factual situation (whether you have a permit or not, how serious the breaches are, what the planning rules say);
• the quality and speed of your steps (observing deadlines, correctly drafting complaints, filing a suspension request);
• willingness to invest in evidence (expert reports, planning documentation, legal advice);
• the attitude of authorities and the practice of the competent court.

Demolition and stop-work disputes are, by definition, urgent. Every day counts. If you react based only on instinct or “after finishing the site”, you risk losing not only the case, but also any leverage to negotiate or to limit the damage.

Ultimately, one point is vital: a demolition order is not destiny, but it also cannot be ignored. You may be able to save your house or your investment precisely because you move quickly, coherently and with a strategy built together with professionals (lawyer, architect, technical expert) who know both the law and the real-life practice of courts in planning and construction disputes.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not replace individualized legal advice. For an in-depth assessment of your situation, you should consult a lawyer directly.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) – demolition orders, stop-work orders and suspension of enforcement

1. Can I stop demolition if I file a court action?

Simply filing an action to annul the demolition order does not automatically suspend enforcement. To stop demolition, you must file a request to suspend enforcement under Articles 14–15 of Law no. 554/2004, proving both a well-justified case and imminent damage. If the court grants the request, demolition is temporarily suspended until the dispute is finally decided or until the date set by the court.

2. How long does a demolition-order annulment case take?

Duration varies based on the court and the complexity of the case, but in practice an administrative-litigation case involving technical expert evidence may last between 1 and 3 years, sometimes longer (including the appeal). This is why a suspension request is crucial: without it, demolition may be carried out long before a final decision on the merits.

3. If I pay the fine, can I still challenge the demolition order?

Yes. Paying the contravention fine does not mean you also accept demolition. The contravention report and the demolition order are different acts, challenged through separate procedures (contravention complaint, respectively administrative-litigation action). Ideally, you should discuss with a lawyer whether it is appropriate to challenge each of them, depending on your overall strategy.

4. Can I legalize a construction built without any permit?

It depends on the circumstances. If planning rules allow it and the project can be brought into compliance with PUG, PUZ and local regulations, and the land is not subject to absolute prohibitions (for example, it is not a public green area or public domain), legalization may be possible through documentation and a subsequent permit. If, however, the construction seriously breaches planning rules or is built on land with a special status, legalization is often impossible and demolition becomes very likely. The assessment must be made case by case, with both an architect and a lawyer.

5. What happens if the authority demolishes before the court rules?

If demolition has already been carried out but the court later annuls the demolition order as unlawful, you may in principle seek compensation (material and sometimes moral damages) in administrative litigation. In practice, however, it is much harder to rebuild or to obtain full compensation than to prevent demolition through suspension. This is why swift action (suspension requests) is essential.

6. If I sell the property, does the demolition order still apply?

As a rule, changing ownership does not “erase” the effects of the demolition order. The administrative act concerns the construction itself and the legal situation created by erecting it, so the new owner may also be affected by the obligation to demolish. Before buying or selling a property with authorization issues or ongoing litigation, a proper legal due diligence and review of planning documents and court cases is essential.

7. Do I have better chances if this is my family’s only home?

The fact that the building is your family’s only home can be a strong argument when proving imminent damage, especially in a suspension request. The court will take account of the impact of demolition on your home and family life, but this factor alone is not enough to guarantee annulment where planning breaches are serious. It is an important element in the proportionality assessment, not an absolute guarantee.