The Code on Spatial Planning, Urban Planning, and Construction

Mihai Ionescu-Balea, attorney-at-law

The Impact on Construction Companies

The Romanian Code on Spatial Planning, Urban Planning, and Construction (CATUC) is expected to take effect by the end of August 2026. In this context, construction companies can expect major changes across the entire chain of activities, from obtaining urban planning documentation, permits, and authorisations, to design, execution, and monitoring the long-term performance of the structure. 

CATUC introduces significant changes regarding the authorisation and approval procedure, establishing a simplified and unified mechanism under a single approval/authorisation commission. Another important change introduced by CATUC is the requirement for construction companies to obtain certification based on their specialisation, experience, and other objective criteria, which will be considered as qualification criteria in public procurement. At the same time, CATUC introduces a new classification system for construction projects under Romanian law, with implications for statutory warranty periods as well. 

In addition to these changes, CATUC codifies and harmonises the most important regulations in the field, providing construction professionals with a single, simplified, and harmonised legislative framework. 

Key words: Code on Spatial Planning, Urban Planning, and Construction in Romania,CATUC, urban planning documentation, authorisation of construction works

Over the past 35 years, the Romanian legislation in the fields of land use planning and construction has been supplemented, amended, and updated. Currently, we are faced with a very dense body of legislation in these areas. In many cases, inconsistencies or parallel regulations have been identified, making it difficult to apply the legislative provisions in practice. One of CATUC’s goals is to harmonise this legislation. To this end, CATUC will codify the most important legislative acts in the field. Of these, the most relevant for professionals in the construction market are: 

• Law No. 350/2001 on land use planning and urban planning, as amended and supplemented; 
• Law No. 50/1991 on the authorisation of construction works, republished, as amended and supplemented;
• Law No. 10/1995 on Quality in Construction, republished, as amended and supplemented. 

In addition to the three legislative acts listed above, over 50 other secondary and tertiary legislative acts will be codified, including: 

• Government Decision No. 273/1994 approving the Regulation on the acceptance of constructions, as subsequently amended and supplemented.

• Government Decision No. 907/2016 on the stages of preparation and the framework content of the technical and economic documentation related to investment objectives/projects financed from public funds, as amended and supplemented;
• Government Decision No. 925/1995 approving the Regulation on the verification and technical assessment of projects, the technical assessment of the execution of works and constructions, as well as the verification of the quality of completed works, with subsequent

One of the stated goals of the new regulation is the digitisation of the construction sector and land-use planning activities. We have identified three main areas in which digitisation is regulated at the CATUC level:  

• National Building Registry: an IT system that will contain a database of all buildings in Romania;
• The Single Platform for Construction Planning and Authorisation, which will support the operational activities of local public administration authorities and ensure the digital integration of approved land-use and urban planning documentation with construction authorisation documentation. 
• Introduction of BIM: CATUC provides the legislative framework through which designers, contractors, and beneficiaries will be able to use BIM technology in construction contracts.

CATUC aims to simplify the (often cumbersome) procedures for obtaining the approvals and authorisations necessary for carrying out construction projects. 

Regarding the approvals required for issuing urban planning documentation, CATUC establishes a single Approval Commission, comprising representatives of all authorities required by law to issue approvals. In this way, the approval process is integrated and results from a single procedure. This eliminates the sequential approval process required under current legislation. 

It remains to be seen how the new approval procedure introduced by CATUC will align with the simplified procedure introduced by Emergency Ordinance No. 31/2025 and Emergency Ordinance No. 7/2026. These two emergency ordinances have introduced substantial amendments to Law No. 350/2001, intended to achieve the same result: the simplification of the approval procedure. 

Upon comparing the procedure set forth in CATUC with the current procedure, as amended by Government Emergency Ordinance No. 31/2025 and Government Emergency Ordinance No. 7/2026, we observe that both procedures prohibit making the issuance of certain approvals and agreements contingent upon the prior obtaining of other approvals and agreements. 

However, the timeframe for reviewing and issuing approvals differs. CATUC provides for a 60-day period from receipt of the documentation for the Integrated Approval Commission to review the documentation and communicate the specific approval conditions, followed by 15 days to issue the single integrated approval. On the other hand, Article 56(10) of Law No. 350/2001, currently in force, provides for the obligation to review and issue approvals or permits within a maximum of 30 days from the date the beneficiary of the documentation submits the request for their issuance, with certain exceptions. 

Another difference between the simplification proposed by CATUC and that in the current legislation concerns the tacit approval procedure. The procedure provided for by CATUC sets out limited situations in which tacit approval applies, while the current regulation is more detailed. Current regulations include mechanisms to prove the occurrence of tacit acceptance in situations where authorities delay by refusing to receive the documentation (e.g., proof of sending the documentation via email or mail is sufficient to establish the starting point of the tacit approval period). The CATUC draft does not provide such details. It will be interesting to see how the legislature will reconcile these two procedures, which have similar purposes but different means.

Regarding the issuance of building permits, CATUC provides for a Single Approval Commission, which will operate similarly to the mechanism described above.

The deadlines for obtaining permits are simplified and clarified. If the documentation submitted by the applicant is incomplete, the Commission notifies the applicant of the deficiencies within 10 business days. The applicant is granted a maximum of 3 months from receipt of the notification of deficiencies to remedy them. Following the submission of complete and correct documentation. The Single Approval Commission has 30 calendar days to issue the building permit. 

CATUC also introduces a change regarding the validity of building permits: 3 years from the date of issuance, as opposed to the 24-month period from issuance currently regulated by Law No. 50/1991. 

Even though CATUC aims to simplify and optimise administrative processes, it is inevitable that in practice, disruptions, delays, and bottlenecks will arise, giving rise to litigation. 

Based on our experience as lawyers specialising in construction law in Romania, the most significant categories of disputes in these areas are as follows: 

a. Disputes regarding delays in the issuance of an administrative act – In most cases, in practice, the parties affected by the delay in issuing an administrative act (e.g., an opinion, agreement, or permit) seek damages through the courts for the delay caused. 

b. Disputes regarding the unjustified refusal to issue an administrative act – Art. 374 CATUC provides that, in the event that an administrative act of unjustified rejection of an application issued by public authorities has been annulled by a court, the public authority that issued the annulled act, upon receiving a new application filed by the same legal entity and having the same subject matter, may not reject the new application on the same grounds.

c. Disputes regarding the annulment of administrative acts – The most common disputes in this category concern the annulment of building permits or the annulment of the General Urban Plan (PUG) or the Detailed Urban Plan (PUZ). Regarding requests for the annulment of the PUG or PUZ, CATUC provides for a 5-year statute of limitations, which is a derogation from the Administrative Litigation Law. 

CATUC does not introduce major changes regarding the acceptance procedure, which means that the legislative solutions established under current law will remain fully applicable even after CATUC enters into force. 

To answer the specific question in the title, there are three possible scenarios: 

• Scenario 1 (provided for by the Regulation on the Acceptance of Construction Works):

If the beneficiary unjustifiably delays the acceptance upon completion of the works after the contractor has requested it, the contractor may submit a new request. The beneficiary will be required to convene the acceptance commission within 10 days of the second request. If the beneficiary fails to convene the acceptance committee within 10 days, the contractor may convene the acceptance committee meeting himself. 

• Scenario 2 (Art. 1862 of the Civil Code):

Art. 1862 of the Civil Code regulates the concept of presumed acceptance. This provision may be invoked if, without valid reason, the beneficiary fails to appear or to communicate the results of the inspection to the contractor. In such a case, the work shall be deemed accepted without reservation. 

• Scenario 3:

If neither of the two legislative solutions presented above is sufficient, it will be necessary to file a lawsuit to compel the beneficiary to accept the work and to claim damages for the losses caused by the failure to accept the work. 

Participation in joint ventures under Law No. 98/2016 involves, beyond operational advantages, a specific legal liability regime.

The legislator expressly established, under Article 185(1) of Law No. 98/2016, the joint and several liability of the members for contract performance. This special rule is complemented by Article 1953(1) of the Romanian Civil Code, which also establishes joint liability of partners in relations with third parties.

The basis of this liability lies in the nature of the joint venture itself: a contractual form of cooperation based on affectio societatis, where members pursue a common goal, sharing both benefits and risks.

In practice, this allows the contracting authority to pursue any member for full performance or damages, regardless of internal allocation of responsibilities.

Under Article 1953(4) of the Romanian Civil Code, any clause limiting a partner’s liability towards third parties is not opposable to them. In public procurement, this means that internal agreements limiting liability cannot be invoked against the contracting authority.

However, where such clauses are included in the joint venture agreement submitted with the tender and form part of the procurement contract, they may become opposable under the principle of contractual relativity.

At the same time, exceeding the limits of the lead partner’s mandate is not without consequences. Such conduct may trigger the contractual liability of the lead partner towards the other members of the association, insofar as they suffer damage as a result of the acts concluded by it. In relation to the contracting authority, the effects are more nuanced and depend largely on the authority’s conduct and knowledge of the fact that the lead partner is acting beyond the limits of its mandate.

Thus, where the contracting authority knew or should have known the limits of the lead partner’s mandate – given that the joint venture agreement is, as a rule, part of the public procurement contract – and nevertheless concludes an addendum exclusively with the lead partner, without the consent of the other members, the issue of legal reclassification of the transaction may arise. In such a scenario, the provisions of Article 1613 of the Romanian Civil Code regarding novation may become applicable, with the possible effect of releasing from liability those members of the joint venture who did not consent to the modification of the initial obligations.

This perspective highlights that, although joint and several liability is the rule in public procurement, it is not absolute, as there are cases where the evidence submitted demonstrates the applicability of legal mechanisms under which the rule of joint liability may be excluded and the contractual liability of certain members may be removed.

In conclusion, the regime of joint and several liability – grounded both in the special provisions of Article 185(1) of Law No. 98/2016 on public procurement and in the general rules of Article 1953 of the Romanian Civil Code – must be carefully analysed and managed by economic operators.

In the absence of a clear delimitation of the lead partner’s mandate and effective internal control mechanisms, the risk that each member’s assets may be exposed to significant legal and financial consequences becomes real.

The expectation is that the new CATUC, long sought after by professionals in the construction market, will provide a unified and coherent legislative framework for this sector, which is essential to Romania’s development. 

The draft law generally provides balanced solutions aligned with market realities. However, there remain several areas that could be improved or better adapted to the current economic context. At the same time, it remains to be seen to what extent the amendments discussed during the legislative process will bring major changes to the 2023 version adopted by the Romanian Senate.

Ultimately, this ambitious effort to harmonise and codify legislation is welcome, and practice will demonstrate the necessity and suitability of the new legislation for market needs.