Urban planning disputes over the planning certificate and the refusal of the building permit: how to defend yourself as a property owner

This article aims to provide a practical and accessible guide for owners facing such problems, who want to understand: what a planning certificate is, how to challenge a restrictive or abusive certificate, how to contest the refusal to issue a building permit (including tacit refusal), what mandatory procedural steps exist (pre-litigation complaint, administrative court action), which deadlines must be respected, and what the main legal provisions and recent case-law say.

We will refer to the main pieces of Romanian urban planning legislation, especially Law no. 50/1991 on the authorisation of construction works, Law no. 350/2001 on spatial planning and urbanism, Government Decision no. 525/1996 approving the General Urban Planning Regulation, as well as Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation and the relevant methodological norms.

1. The legal framework for urban planning and construction authorisation

The legal regime of constructions and real estate development results from a combination of laws, government decisions, ministerial orders and local regulations, which must be read together.

• Law no. 50/1991 regulates, first and foremost, the procedure for authorising construction works, the conditions for issuing the planning certificate and the building permit, the cases where a permit is required and the sanctions for unauthorised works. The updated text can be consulted on the official Legislative Portal or, in consolidated form, on specialist websites such as Lege5 or EuroAvocatura.
• Law no. 350/2001 sets out the principles and tools for spatial planning and urbanism, the types of planning documents (general urban plan – PUG, zonal urban plan – PUZ, detailed urban plan – PUD), the procedure for drafting and approving them, and their effects. The text is available at legislatie.just.ro and in PDF format on, for example, the website of the State Inspectorate in Construction (ISC).
• The General Urban Planning Regulation, approved by Government Decision no. 525/1996, details the rules on land use and siting of constructions. It is the national framework that local urban planning regulations must respect. A consolidated version can be found on the Chamber of Deputies website or on legeaz.net.
• The Methodological Norms for the application of Law 50/1991, approved by Order no. 839/2009 of the Ministry of Regional Development and Housing, contain key procedural details on the content of documentation, forms, circulation of applications, lists of required approvals etc. The full text can be accessed, for example, on the ISC website or in PDF on OAR Bucharest.
• The Methodological Norms for the application of Law 350/2001 are approved by Order no. 233/2016 of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, published in the Official Gazette no. 199/2016, and available in PDF on the ISC website or on regio-adrcentru.ro.
• Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation regulates the procedure for challenging administrative acts (including planning certificates and building permits), the preliminary complaint, deadlines, jurisdiction and available remedies. The updated text is available on the Legislative Portal.

In parallel, in recent years public debate has focused on a draft Code on Spatial Planning, Urbanism and Construction (ATUC), which is going through the legislative process. The draft can be consulted on the website of the Ministry of Development and on the page of the Chamber of Deputies (e.g. PL-x no. 418/2023). Until it is effectively adopted and enters into force, the current texts of Law 50/1991, Law 350/2001 and their implementing regulations remain applicable.

2. The planning certificate: role, content and legal nature

The planning certificate is, in essence, the act by which the public authority (usually the mayor or the president of the county council) informs the applicant about the legal, economic and technical status of a plot of land and the planning conditions under which a certain investment can be carried out.

Article 6 of Law 50/1991 provides that the planning certificate has, among others, the role to:

• inform the applicant about the legal, economic and technical status of the land and existing constructions on the date of the request, in accordance with the PUG, PUZ, PUD and their regulations;
• establish the planning requirements that must be met in relation to the specifics of the location;
• indicate the list of approvals and agreements required for the building permit;
• inform the investor about the need to obtain the environmental authority’s opinion or act, where applicable.

For a long time, practice tended to consider the planning certificate as mere “information”, a preparatory act with only indirect effects on the right of ownership. This led to serious controversy: can the planning certificate be challenged in court when it contains prohibitions or limitations that make it impossible to use the land as intended?

Through Decision no. 25/2017 in a recurs în interesul legii (appeal in the interest of the law), the High Court of Cassation and Justice clarified this issue: the planning certificate can be regarded as an administrative act subject to judicial review when it contains limitations or prohibitions significantly affecting the right of ownership (such as a construction ban). The full text of the decision is available on the Legislative Portal and is analysed, for example, on legeaz.net and in specialist articles such as “Anularea certificatului de urbanism / Annulment of the planning certificate”.

In practice, we encounter several patterns of planning certificates:

• “Favourable” planning certificate, which confirms that the proposed investment is possible, perhaps with reasonable conditions (technical approvals, adherence to urban planning indicators, alignment etc.).
• Restrictive planning certificate or de facto construction ban (for example “temporary construction ban until a new PUZ/PUG is approved” or “land zoned as green area, construction prohibited”).
• Certificate issued “for another purpose” than requested (for instance the applicant requests a certificate for building a house, but receives a certificate “for subdivision” or a purely “informative” one that cannot be used to obtain a building permit). Courts have sanctioned such practices, ordering authorities to issue a certificate aligned with the real purpose of the request (see, for example, judgments discussed on kehaiyan.ro or avocattimisoara.eu).

For an owner, the difference is crucial: a certificate that prohibits or blocks building can mean, in practice, the impossibility of economically valorising the land. In such cases, the discussion is no longer merely technical but directly concerns the right of ownership, protected by the Romanian Constitution and by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which explains why courts have become increasingly open to reviewing the legality of planning certificates.

3. The building permit: explicit refusal and tacit refusal

If the planning certificate is, in principle, an act of information and setting conditions, the building permit is the administrative act which effectively allows construction works in a given location and under certain conditions.

According to Article 7 of Law 50/1991, the building permit must be issued, as a rule, within 30 days from the date on which the complete documentation was submitted (including the planning certificate, technical project, all approvals required by the certificate, title deeds etc.). The methodological norms in Order no. 839/2009 detail the required documents and the internal circulation of the file.

In practice, the main problems arise in two scenarios:

• Explicit refusal to issue the building permit, through a written reply (letter, disposition, resolution) where the authority invokes various reasons (non-compliance with the PUG/PUZ, missing approvals, additional conditions etc.).
• Tacit refusal (or “unjustified refusal to resolve the application”), where the documentation was submitted, but the authority does not respond within the legal time limit, continuously postpones a decision or repeatedly returns the file without issuing a clear administrative act.

Law 554/2004 defines, in Article 2(2), unjustified refusal as the explicit expression, with abuse of power, of the will not to resolve an application, but it also assimilates unjustified refusal with the authority’s silence beyond the legal deadline. Case-law confirms that the lack of a reply within the statutory time limit may be challenged in court as an unjustified refusal, without always requiring a separate preliminary complaint (see decisions published on jurisprudenta.com or the case commentary at Refusal to issue a building permit).

There are also situations where the authority conditions the permit on meeting questionable obligations, such as donating part of the land for a road or granting easements free of charge – conditions which have been sanctioned by the courts as unlawful or disproportionate (see, for example, decisions discussed on legeaz.net or jurisprudenta.com).

4. The preliminary complaint: a mandatory step in most cases

Before going to court, in the vast majority of cases you will be required to submit a preliminary complaint (plângere prealabilă) to the issuing authority (or its hierarchical superior). Article 7 of Law 554/2004 provides that the injured person must, within 30 days from the date on which they became aware of the act, ask the authority to revoke it in whole or in part.

In urban planning matters, the preliminary complaint is typically addressed to:

• the mayor of the administrative-territorial unit (or the president of the county council) when the challenge concerns a planning certificate or the refusal to issue a building permit;
• the local or county council when the challenge targets a decision approving a PUG, PUZ or local planning regulation that restricts the owner’s rights.

There is no rigid statutory template, but in practice a sound preliminary complaint should include at least:

• the applicant’s identification details and the details of the challenged act (number, date, issuing authority);
• a description of the facts and the legitimate interest (for example the intention to build a home, extend an existing building, add a loft etc.);
• references to the legal provisions breached (provisions in Law 50/1991, Law 350/2001, the General Urban Planning Regulation, local regulations, the Constitution etc.);
• arguments of unlawfulness and/or lack of factual grounds (contradiction with PUG/PUZ, ignoring an in-force PUZ, imposing conditions not provided by law, exceeding powers, lack of reasons);
• a clear request for the revocation/annulment of the act and, where appropriate, for the issuance of a new planning certificate or the building permit, in line with the applicable planning documents.

Article 7(5) of Law 554/2004 also covers situations of unjustified refusal to resolve an application: in such cases, the preliminary complaint is no longer always mandatory, but in practice it is still useful to send at least one further written request, to properly document the authority’s silence.

5. Administrative court action: how to litigate the planning certificate or the refusal of the building permit

If the preliminary complaint is rejected or ignored, the owner may bring an administrative court action before the competent court, seeking judicial review of the planning certificate and/or the refusal to issue the building permit.

5.1. Deadlines and conditions

Under Article 11 of Law 554/2004, the action may generally be filed within six months from:

• the date on which the reply to the preliminary complaint was received;
• the date on which the deadline for a reply expired (if no reply was received);
• the date on which the unjustified refusal to resolve the application became apparent (in cases of tacit refusal to issue the permit).

It is crucial for the owner to be able to prove the timeline of their interactions with the authority: date of submission of the application for a certificate/permit, date of communication of the act, date of the preliminary complaint, date of the reply (or lack thereof). It is therefore advisable to use channels that provide clear proof (registration at the authority’s registry with a reference number, registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, official online platforms).

5.2. The competent court

As a rule, urban planning disputes concerning individual administrative acts (planning certificate, building permit, mayoral orders) fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal – administrative and tax litigation section in whose territorial area the property is located, under Article 10 of Law 554/2004. For local or county council decisions approving PUG/PUZ, jurisdiction may belong to the Courts of Appeal, depending on the nature and effects of the act, according to the same law.

5.3. What you can ask the court to do

In an administrative litigation action, the claimant may typically seek the following:

• annulment of the planning certificate (wholly or partially) and an order requiring the authority to issue a new certificate reflecting the actual planning status and valid planning documents;
• annulment of the explicit refusal to issue the building permit and an order requiring the authority to issue the permit, if all legal conditions are met;
• a declaration of unjustified refusal to decide on the application for a permit and an order requiring the authority to decide on the application within a specific timeframe;
• annulment of a building permit issued for a neighbour or third party, where it infringes the claimant’s property rights or violates applicable planning rules (especially in light of recent decisions of the Constitutional Court on access to justice in such cases – see, for example, commentaries on avocatu.ro);
• damages for harm caused by the unlawful administrative act or unjustified refusal (financial losses, wasted design fees, interest on loans etc.).

6. Suspension of the act: how to “freeze” effects pending the main action

In many situations, filing an action for annulment is not enough; the owner also needs the effects of the act (or refusal) to be suspended until a final decision on the merits. Law 554/2004 provides two key mechanisms:

• Article 14 – allows a party to request suspension of the execution of an administrative act before or together with the main action, if two cumulative conditions are met: existence of a prima facie case (caz bine justificat) and imminent harm (pagubă iminentă);
• Article 15 – regulates suspension throughout the proceedings after the main action has been filed.

In the urban planning context, suspension may target, for example:

• the effects of a planning certificate that imposes a construction ban or disproportionate obligations (for instance the requirement to draft an expensive PUZ for a simple single-family house);
• the effects of a neighbour’s building permit challenged by surrounding owners, where the works could cause irreparable harm to their property;
• a prohibition on issuing permits based on a PUZ that has been suspended or is under serious legal challenge, where there are solid indications that the PUZ is unlawful.

7. Defence strategies for owners in urban planning disputes

Beyond merely citing legal provisions, an effective defence strategy in urban planning disputes requires a combination of technical and legal arguments, supported by documents and, where necessary, specialist expert reports.

7.1. Checking applicable planning documents

The first step is to identify clearly all planning documents applicable to the land: PUG, PUZ, PUD, local planning regulations, and any special status (protected area, historical monument area, environmental restrictions etc.). These can be obtained from the town hall or accessed online; many municipalities publish PUG and PUZ as PDFs or GIS layers on their official websites.

It is important to clarify:

• whether the PUZ invoked in the certificate is still in force or has been annulled or suspended (there are cases where authorities continue to issue certificates based on PUZs annulled by final court decisions);
• whether there are older PUZs still in force, that the authority disregards in favour of the PUG;
• whether the height regime, occupancy rate (POT), floor area ratio (CUT) and other planning indicators have been correctly transposed in the certificate and in the authority’s analysis.

7.2. Analysing the reasoning of the administrative act

Under general principles of administrative law, an administrative act must be properly reasoned, i.e. it must explicitly state the factual and legal reasons behind the decision. A planning certificate or refusal that relies solely on standard wording (“does not comply with valid planning regulations”) without specific references may be considered insufficiently reasoned.

In court, you can invoke:

• total absence of reasons;
• purely formal, copy-paste reasoning, without any real link to the specific situation;
• contradictions between the reasoning and the planning documents (for example the PUZ allows three storeys, but the certificate claims the maximum is ground floor plus one floor).

7.3. Expert evidence in urban planning and construction

In complex cases, courts frequently rely on technical expert reports in urban planning and construction, prepared by certified experts. Such an expert report may clarify:

• the exact classification of the land within the relevant planning unit (UTR) under the PUG/PUZ;
• whether the project proposed by the owner complies with or breaches the planning indicators, setbacks and other regulatory requirements;
• any errors by the authority in interpreting plans, legends and planning rules.

A well-prepared expert report can be decisive, particularly where the authority’s arguments are vague or generic.

7.4. Invoking the right to property and the principle of proportionality

Urban planning is, by definition, a field of balancing public interest and individual rights. Not every restriction is unlawful: the existence of protected areas, special regimes (green areas, protection corridors, airport safety zones etc.) is legitimate as long as they are provided by law, clear, proportionate and foreseeable.

However, situations where an owner is effectively deprived of any reasonable possibility to build or use their land, without compensation and without a serious public interest justification, raise serious issues under Article 44 of the Romanian Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. In such cases, the court may assess whether the interference with property is proportionate and whether the authority respected legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

8. Practical examples: from restrictive planning certificates to unjustified refusal of the permit

8.1. Planning certificate with “temporary construction ban”

A property owner requests a planning certificate for the construction of a house on an intra-muros plot. The issued certificate specifies that the land is located in an area for which a new PUZ is envisaged and notes a “temporary construction ban until the PUZ is approved”. Similar situations have reached the courts, where judges have examined whether an authority can indefinitely block the right to build based solely on a future, not yet approved, planning document.

Defence strategy may include:

• requesting information on the real status of the envisaged PUZ (is there a concrete procedure or just an intention mentioned in planning policy documents?);
• arguing that Law 350/2001 distinguishes between drafting and approving a PUZ, and that construction bans must be based on in-force normative acts, not on draft plans;
• raising proportionality arguments, especially where the land was acquired relying on a previously permissive planning regime and that change is not accompanied by compensation or real alternatives.

8.2. Refusal to issue a permit until the “donation” of a strip of land

Another frequent scenario is where the authority conditions the building permit on the “donation” of a strip of land to the public domain, for future widening of a street or building a sidewalk. Case-law has criticised such conditions where they lack a clear legal basis or are disproportionate (requirements on the strip’s size or location, absence of any expropriation procedure or compensation).

In such cases, the owner may:

• request the precise legal basis for the condition (provisions of the PUG/PUZ, local regulation, technical standards);
• argue that compulsory transfer of ownership to the public domain should follow the formal expropriation procedure laid down in Law no. 33/1994 and Law no. 255/2010, rather than taking the form of a forced “donation”;
• file a preliminary complaint and, subsequently, a court action seeking an order requiring the authority to issue the permit without the abusive condition.

8.3. Planning certificate issued “for another purpose”

There are situations where the owner requests a planning certificate “for building a house (GF + 1F)” and the authority issues a certificate “for information”, “for PUZ drafting” or otherwise not usable for obtaining a building permit. Courts have held, in several cases, that such practice can amount to an unjustified refusal to resolve the application, and have annulled the certificate, ordering the authority to issue a new certificate consistent with the declared purpose (see case-law discussed on kehaiyan.ro and on legeaz.net).

8.4. Neighbour challenging a building permit

From the perspective of the owner who obtained the permit, another category of disputes concerns actions brought by neighbours, owners’ associations or environmental NGOs seeking annulment of the building permit. Following recent decisions of the Constitutional Court, access to justice in such cases has been broadened for these categories of claimants, who may rely on violations of property rights or the right to a healthy environment (see analyses on avocatu.ro).

For the permit holder, it is important to show that he or she acted in good faith, complied with planning rules, obtained all necessary approvals and that the project fits within approved planning indicators. In some cases, courts may uphold the permit despite identifying minor defects, particularly when public interest in legal certainty and the investments already made carry significant weight.

9. Practical checklist for property owners

To summarise the main points, here is a short checklist that any property owner can use when facing a problematic planning certificate or the refusal of a building permit:

1. Do not ignore the administrative act: note the date of communication (keep the envelope, postal confirmation or proof of receipt of the e-mail/platform message).
2. Carefully read the reasoning: look for references to the PUG, PUZ, the General Urban Planning Regulation, local rules and check whether they actually match the planning documents.
3. Consult the legal texts: use the Legislative Portal to check Law 50/1991, Law 350/2001, Law 554/2004, Government Decision 525/1996, Order 839/2009 and Order 233/2016.
4. Request, where necessary, the relevant plans and extracts (PUG, PUZ, regulations) from the town hall or consult them online.
5. File the preliminary complaint within the legal time limit (usually 30 days): clearly explain why you consider the act unlawful or unfounded and what you are asking for.
6. Keep all evidence of communications (registry receipts, e-mails, written replies).
7. Assess the opportunity of an administrative court action and, where stakes are high, consult a lawyer experienced in urban planning and administrative litigation.
8. Consider requesting suspension of the effects of the act (certificate, neighbour’s permit) if there is an imminent risk of irreparable or hard-to-repair harm.