In brief

  • The provision of the urban planning law that allowed derogations from urban plans, in the form in force before 2006, had already been declared unconstitutional by an earlier ruling of the Court. In the present case the plea of unconstitutionality was therefore dismissed under the formula “became inadmissible”, used when the text under challenge has already been struck down and can no longer be contested again.
  • The practical consequence is what matters: a plea dismissed as “became inadmissible” can serve as a ground for revision of a final judgment, under Article 509(1)(11) of the Civil Procedure Code.
  • For the newer versions of the same article, those amended between 2008 and 2016, the plea was dismissed as inadmissible because it was not reasoned. The applicant simply repeated the arguments from 2020, without criticising the new provisions.
Act: CCR Decision No. 10/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 630 of 30 July 2026
In force from: 30 July 2026

Anyone who lost a court case about an urban planning derogation granted under the law as it stood before 2006 can now ask for the judgment to be reopened. The Constitutional Court of Romania confirmed this position in Decision No. 10 of 15 January 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 630 of 30 July 2026, in a case brought by the “Constanța Altfel” association before the Constanța Tribunal. The decision concerns Article 32 of Law No. 350/2001, that is, the very mechanism by which a zonal urban plan can derogate from the general urban plan, a subject also taken over by the new Code of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and Construction.

To understand the ruling, a step back is needed. By Decision No. 49 of 4 February 2020, the Court declared unconstitutional Article 32(1), first sentence, of Law No. 350/2001, in the form resulting from the amendment made by Law No. 289/2006. The reason: the safeguards against arbitrary action by the authorities were vague, general and largely formal. The text allowed a derogation request to be approved or rejected on the authority’s simple appreciation, without objective criteria, which breached the principle of legality and equality before the law.

Rulings that uphold a plea, however, produce effects only for the future. That is why, by Decision No. 678 of 25 November 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 257 of 1 April 2026, the Court extended the same finding to the version preceding the 2006 amendment, on the ground that the same reasoning applies.

In the “Constanța Altfel” case, the first relevant urban planning certificate had been issued on 2 February 2006, therefore under the old text. Under Article 29(3) of Law No. 47/1992, provisions whose unconstitutionality has already been established cannot form the object of a new plea. Hence the dismissal as “became inadmissible”.

What it changes in practice

The first and most important effect is that it opens the way to revision, the procedure for reopening a final judgment. The Court expressly recalls, in paragraph 24, that a dismissal on the ground that the plea “became inadmissible” can constitute a ground for an application for revision, under Article 509(1)(11) of the Civil Procedure Code. Anyone holding a final judgment delivered on the basis of the text declared unconstitutional therefore has a real procedural opening.

The second effect concerns the second part of the operative wording. For the versions of Article 32(1) amended by Government Ordinance No. 27/2008, by Government Emergency Ordinance No. 7/2011, approved by Law No. 190/2013, and by Government Emergency Ordinance No. 100/2016, the plea was dismissed as inadmissible. Those texts remain in force and apply without restriction.

The third effect is a lesson in constitutional procedure. The Court found that the author of the plea had repeated the arguments set out in Decision No. 49/2020, ignoring the new provisions subsequently introduced in Article 32, against which no distinct criticism was raised. The Court cannot take the place of the author in formulating the grounds, under Article 29(4) of Law No. 47/1992, and an unreasoned plea is inadmissible.

The fourth effect is a signal to local administrations. The Court notes that new normative situations have meanwhile been introduced in Article 32, reshaping the earlier solutions and setting out in substantial detail the regime of derogations from urban planning documentation. In other words, the flaws identified in 2020 have, in the Court’s view, been corrected by the legislature.

The fifth effect is a limit in time. The decision does not call into question derogations approved under the newer versions of the law and produces no effects on urban planning acts issued after the text was corrected.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

No rule in force is changed. What does become clearer is a rather tangled legal map, because Article 32 of Law No. 350/2001 has gone through at least five successive versions, and every urban planning certificate is assessed against the version of the law in force on the date it was issued.

The current position is as follows. The version preceding Law No. 289/2006 is unconstitutional, by Decision No. 678/2025. The version following Law No. 289/2006 is unconstitutional, by Decision No. 49/2020. The later versions, resulting from Government Ordinance No. 27/2008, Government Emergency Ordinance No. 7/2011 and Government Emergency Ordinance No. 100/2016, remain in force, and the criticisms directed at them in this case were not examined on the merits.

The substantive reasoning from 2020 is also worth keeping in mind, because it explains why objective criteria matter so much. The Court held that a person living in an area with a building regime established through urban planning documentation cannot be sure that the regime will be maintained even for a reasonable period, if the authority can alter it continuously, without any legal condition. This is an interference with the right to intimate, family and private life, protected by Article 26 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

What has changed, then, is above all the procedural position of those with old disputes: from challengers of a legal text, they potentially become applicants for revision.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It expressly confirms the revision route for final judgments delivered on the basis of the text declared unconstitutional, with a reference to Article 509(1)(11) of the Civil Procedure Code.
  • It closes an uncertainty that had lasted since 2020: the pre-2006 version of the text is unconstitutional as well, not only the later one.
  • It restates the constitutional standard for urban planning derogations: objective criteria, minimum requirements, protection against arbitrary decisions.
  • It confirms that the later amendments to Article 32 corrected the flaws identified in 2020, which gives stability to documentation approved under the current wording.
  • It was adopted unanimously, with no separate opinion, so the ruling is not contested even within the Court.

What remains a problem

  • The criticisms directed at the 2008, 2011 and 2016 versions of Article 32 were not examined on the merits. They remain open, but only for those who set them out with distinct reasoning.
  • Revision has strict deadlines and conditions of its own. A ruling of the Court does not automatically reopen a case, and anyone who misses the deadline is left with the old judgment.
  • Buildings put up on the basis of derogations already approved do not disappear. Even a case won on revision runs into situations already settled on the ground.
  • An ordinary citizen has to work out alone which version of the law applied on the date of their urban planning certificate, which in practice means paying for legal assistance.
  • The underlying dispute, started in 2018, reaches clarification only in 2026. The length of urban planning proceedings remains the main practical problem.

Practical advice

  1. Check the date of the urban planning certificate. It determines which version of the law applies and, implicitly, whether your situation falls under Decision No. 678/2025 or Decision No. 49/2020.
  2. If you lost a case decided by a final judgment based on this text, consider revision. The legal basis is Article 509(1)(11) of the Civil Procedure Code, and the time limit runs from publication of the decision upholding the plea in the Official Gazette of Romania.
  3. Note the reference date for the old version: Decision No. 678/2025 was published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 257 of 1 April 2026.
  4. If you are challenging a recently approved zonal urban plan, do not copy the 2020 arguments. The Court dismissed precisely that approach. Criticisms must be set out distinctly, against the text in force on the date of the contested act.
  5. As an owners’ association or civic organisation, request the urban planning documentation and the approvals in good time. Well documented challenges, filed within the deadline, stand a better chance than general pleas of unconstitutionality.
  6. As a local authority, check whether council decisions approving derogations from the 2001-2006 period still produce effects in pending litigation. They can be reopened through revision.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide in Decision No. 10/2026?
It dismissed the plea on two points: as “became inadmissible” for Article 32, first sentence, of Law No. 350/2001 in the wording preceding Law No. 289/2006, and as inadmissible for Article 32(1) in the versions amended by Government Ordinance No. 27/2008, Government Emergency Ordinance No. 7/2011 and Government Emergency Ordinance No. 100/2016. The decision was adopted unanimously.
What is the difference between “inadmissible” and “became inadmissible”?
“Became inadmissible” means that the challenged text had already been declared unconstitutional by an earlier ruling, so it can no longer be the object of a new plea. “Inadmissible”, in this case, means that the plea was not reasoned, and the Court cannot take the place of the author in formulating the criticisms.
What does it mean in practice for a pending case?
If the final judgment was based on the text declared unconstitutional, a dismissal on the ground that the plea “became inadmissible” can constitute a ground for revision, under Article 509(1)(11) of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court says so expressly, in paragraph 24 of the decision.
What did Article 32 of Law No. 350/2001 provide?
The regime of derogations from approved urban planning documentation, that is, the situations in which a zonal or detailed urban plan can change the building regime previously established for an area. It is the central mechanism in authorising buildings that depart from the rules of the general urban plan.
Why was the text declared unconstitutional?
Because it did not contain sufficient and effective safeguards against arbitrary action: it lacked objective criteria and minimum requirements to be met by a derogation request. The Court held that the text allowed approval or rejection on the authority’s simple appreciation, affecting predictability and legal certainty, as well as the right to intimate, family and private life.
Does the current text of the law still have the same problems?
The Court notes that new normative situations have been introduced in Article 32, reshaping the earlier solutions and setting out the regime of derogations in substantial detail, thereby correcting the flaws identified. The criticisms directed at these new versions were not, however, examined on the merits in this case, because they were not reasoned distinctly.
Who raised the plea?
The “Constanța Altfel” association of Constanța, in cases pending before the Constanța Tribunal, Administrative and Tax Litigation Division. The Court’s two case files were joined because they had the same object.
From when does the decision produce effects?
From publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, that is, from 30 July 2026. It is final and generally binding, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution.
Does the decision annul building permits already issued?
No. A ruling of the Court does not by itself set aside individual administrative acts. It opens the way to a challenge or to revision, under the conditions and within the time limits laid down by law, while situations already settled in fact remain a separate problem.
Where can I check which version of the law applies in my case?
On the legislative portal of the Ministry of Justice, which displays the successive versions of legal acts and their status. The reference point is the date on which the urban planning certificate or the contested administrative act was issued.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 630 of 30 July 2026 32 pages PDF, 203 KB the act starts on page 7

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.