Mihai Ionescu-Balea, attorney-at-Law
The Code on Spatial Planning, Urban Planning and Construction (“CATUC”) entered into force on 25 August 2026, following lengthy debates during the legislative process. The Code consolidates existing legislation and introduces new legislative solutions, in an ambitious effort to codify the three fields (spatial planning, urban planning and construction).
One topic of particular practical importance is tacit approval, which is expressly regulated in the new CATUC. The concept is not new to Romanian law. Tacit approval was recently introduced through Government Emergency Ordinance (“GEO”) no. 31/2025 and GEO no. 7/2026, which added to Law no. 50/1991 a tacit approval procedure for urban planning documentation. The stated aim at the time was to speed up the process of obtaining the approvals required for the issuance of urban planning documentation.
Upon the entry into force of the CATUC, the tacit approval rules previously introduced in Law no. 50/1991 were repealed. However, they have not disappeared, as they have been carried over into the new CATUC. A comparative analysis of the former and current tacit approval regimes shows that many aspects remain unchanged in the new CATUC, while certain legislative solutions have not been retained by the legislator. This article examines these changes.
1. The novelty introduced by the CATUC: single approval commissions
The most significant change brought by the CATUC is the introduction of single approval commissions at national and local level, referred to as integrated approval commissions.
The integrated approval commissions bring together representatives of the public authorities that previously shared responsibility for issuing the approvals and endorsements required for the preparation of urban planning documentation (the General Urban Plan (PUG), the Zonal Urban Plan (PUZ) and the Detailed Urban Plan (PUD)). The aim is to unite all responsible parties within a single commission, which will issue one single approval, as opposed to the former “cascade” approval model, under which each interested institution issued a separate approval. The legislator rightly found that the former cascade model caused significant delays in the preparation of urban planning documentation. To address this, a single approval mechanism was introduced, which should, in theory, streamline the approval procedure by concentrating approval responsibility in a single body.
2. The time limit for issuing the approval
Under Article 92(6) of the CATUC, the integrated approval commission has 60 calendar days from receipt of the documentation to review it and communicate the specific approval conditions to the applicant.
This is a preliminary step preceding the actual approval. Its purpose is for the representatives of the institutions and bodies concerned to determine the specific conditions that the documentation submitted for approval must satisfy, where the documentation is incomplete or requires clarification. These conditions are then communicated to the applicant.
Once the applicant resubmits the documentation, having fulfilled the conditions set by the integrated approval commission, the commission has 15 working days to issue the integrated approval. It is important to note that the 15-working-day period runs only from the moment the submitted documentation is complete and “meets all the specific approval conditions formulated by each member of the local integrated approval commission for spatial planning and urban planning documentation, in accordance with the responsibilities of the institutions, organisations or bodies that they represent” (Article 92(8) of the CATUC).
This legislative solution places greater responsibility on the applicant, who must ensure that the documentation submitted is complete and satisfies the specific approval conditions previously communicated by the approval commission. It also serves to protect the public authorities that sit on the approval commission, since the 15-working-day period for issuing the integrated approval does not begin to run until the documentation is complete and meets the specific approval conditions.
Nevertheless, we anticipate that in practice disputes will arise as to whether the documentation is complete and whether the specific conditions have been met. There may be situations in which the approval commission fails to issue an approval within 15 days of submission of the documentation, taking the view that it is incomplete or does not meet the specific conditions. The applicant could then invoke tacit approval, but would have to prove that the documentation was complete and satisfied the specific conditions.
3. How tacit approval operates: comparison with the former regime
Article 93(1) of the CATUC provides:
“The participation of the members in the integrated approval commission and the submission of their position are mandatory. If these conditions are not met, tacit consent shall be deemed to have been given in respect of the urban planning documentation submitted for approval.”
This mechanism of tacit approval rests on a simple presumption: the absence of the representative of the institution concerned, and of that institution’s position, is equivalent to approval of the documentation submitted to the commission for review. Although this legislative solution appears, at first glance, robust and geared towards speed, one can imagine situations in practice in which tacit approval is called into question. For example, what happens where an authority’s representative is absent from the commission’s proceedings for a justified reason? Must the authority arrange for a substitute? Similarly, what happens if an authority’s representative attended and expressed a position at the meeting at which clarifications were requested and specific conditions were set under Article 92(6) of the CATUC, but did not attend the meeting at which the single integrated approval was issued under Article 92(8) of the CATUC?
The forthcoming rules of procedure of the approval commissions, to be adopted under Articles 89(2) and 92(2) of the CATUC respectively, may answer these questions. Undoubtedly, however, practice will reveal further atypical situations in relation to Article 93(1) of the CATUC.
The tacit approval mechanism under the former regime (Law no. 50/1991) was similar, but presented certain nuances. Under Article 5(110) of Law no. 50/1991:
“Both where the approval is not issued, or clarifications/additions/amendments are not requested within the time limits set out in paragraph (13), and where the entities issuing the approvals and endorsements required under the urban planning certificate fail to issue them or fail to reject them with justification in accordance with paragraph (18), within 15 days of the submission of the documentation as corrected and completed in accordance with the law, the documentation submitted by the beneficiary of the works shall be deemed complete and the approvals shall be deemed granted. Approvals issued after the beneficiary has invoked tacit approval shall produce no legal effects.”
We note that the 15-day period from submission of the complete documentation is the same under both regimes, as is the consequence of failing to issue the approval: the approval is deemed to have been issued tacitly. However, the former regime also provided for intermediate scenarios, in which the approving entities could request clarifications, additions or amendments, or could reject approval requests with justification.
Another provision that has not been retained in the new regime is Article 5(16) of Law no. 50/1991, under which the approving authorities were required to notify the beneficiary and the designers of the date on which the documentation would be reviewed by the relevant commissions, regardless of whether they were entitled to attend the meeting. The purpose of that rule was to ensure transparency in the approval process and, above all, to make it easier for the applicant to prove the date from which the approval period began to run.
The new CATUC regime no longer provides for such a transparency procedure, although it is to be expected that information on the date on which a given approval request is reviewed will be accessible to the applicant through the electronic approval platform.
The main effect of tacit approval is that the approvals are deemed to have been obtained, and the beneficiary may continue the procedure for approving the spatial planning or urban planning documentation. Completion of the tacit approval procedure is evidenced by submitting the following documents:
- Proof of the initial registration of the documentation;
- Proof of the completion, amendment or clarification of the documentation, as applicable;
- A sworn statement by which the beneficiary declares that no request for clarification, completion or amendment was received, that no approval, with or without conditions, was issued, and that no rejection notice was issued, as applicable, before the expiry of the time limits.
In this respect, the CATUC provisions are identical to those of the former regime under Law no. 50/1991, the legislator having taken over the wording of Article 5(112) of Law no. 50/1991 verbatim.
4. Conclusions
Tacit approval is a means of streamlining and accelerating the preparation of urban planning documentation, and it offers real advantages in practice: it speeds up the approval process, holds authorities accountable for issuing approvals in a timely manner, and eliminates situations in which administrative silence creates indefinite blockages.
Although the tacit approval regime under the CATUC largely carries over the legislative solutions developed under the former regime (in particular those introduced by GEO no. 31/2025), it adds or removes subtle details that may lead to inconsistent interpretations in practice. It remains to be seen how administrative and judicial practice will apply the tacit approval procedure regulated by the CATUC.
For specialist legal assistance in approval procedures and related administrative disputes, we invite you to contact the Sarbu Partners team.