REmarks #32 (De)constructing Construction Law

At the beginning of the year, amendments to the Construction Law came into force. They were introduced under a project described by the government as “deregulatory”, which we also wrote about in the middle of last year. The aim of the proposed changes was to simplify and accelerate the investment and construction process and to reduce formalities for both individual and institutional investors.

However, during parliamentary proceedings, the project underwent significant changes. Some of the solutions known from the June project were adopted, some were clarified and modified, and some, such as the key Article 10b, only appeared at the parliamentary stage. The amendment was passed on 4 December 2025, and most of its provisions came into force on 7 January 2026. Further changes will come into force in July and September 2026, respectively.

Compared to the original proposal for changes, the act, in the form in which it came into force, expanded the list of investments that do not require a building permit, but only a notification. This applies in particular to free-standing battery energy storage systems (BESS).

Under the current regulations, free-standing BESS with a nominal capacity of more than 30 kWh and not more than 2,000 kWh may be implemented on the basis of a notification, without the need to obtain a building permit, while storage facilities with a capacity not exceeding 30 kWh do not require either a permit or a notification. Construction works involving the installation of electricity storage facilities also do not require notification, as a rule, with the exception of installations with a nominal capacity greater than 30 kWh and not exceeding 300 kWh. At the same time, the amendment introduces a definition of an energy storage system, although the provision establishing it will not enter into force until 20 September 2026.

The validity period of paper construction logs has also been changed. Ultimately, paper construction logs may be used until 31 December 2031, and not, as assumed in the original draft, until 31 December 2034. It is worth recalling that before the amendment, the deadline was 2029. The deadline for owners or managers of buildings to set up a building logbook for such buildings in the Digital Building Logbook system has also been extended until 31 December 2031.

One of the most interesting changes, however, is the introduction of a new Article 10b, which was not included in the original draft amendment of June 2025. This article constitutes a specific provision with regard to the regulations contained in the Code of Administrative Procedure and specifies what elements must be included in an appeal against a decision and a complaint against a ruling issued on the basis of the provisions of the Construction Law.

Pursuant to Article 128 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, if a specific provision does not specify other requirements, an appeal against a decision does not require detailed justification and it is sufficient for its content to indicate that the party is not satisfied with the decision issued. Until now, it has not been necessary to specify specific allegations or arguments in the appeal; it has been sufficient to generally challenge the contested decision. Even an appeal without substantive allegations was procedurally effective and, pursuant to Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, suspended the execution of the building permit decision and blocked it from becoming final until the case was decided by the second instance authority. This was an instrument often used to prolong (hinder) administrative proceedings.

Under the newly introduced regulation, every appeal or complaint must contain allegations relating to the contested decision, specify the scope of the claim that is the subject of the appeal or complaint, and indicate the evidence supporting that claim. If the above requirements are not met, the authority will request the complainant to supplement them, and failure to respond will result in the appeal or complaint being left unexamined. This therefore constitutes a significant formalisation of administrative proceedings in relation to administrative decisions under the Construction Law. However, it seems that this will not constitute a significant obstacle for professional entities or those using legal assistance. After all, we are only talking about formal requirements, i.e. the correct construction of the letter, and not about the validity of the allegations raised. In practice, however, this may prove to be a barrier for individuals who are not prepared to bear the costs of legal advice, even if their arguments against the contested decision are well-founded.

Will Article 10b really reduce the number of appeals and complaints lodged solely “just in case” or out of pure dislike for the investor?
Time will tell. However, it seems that the days of one-sentence appeals such as “I disagree with the decision” are coming to an end, at least with regard to building permits. This is a significant change, especially for “polite neighbours”. However, given the high bar set by formal requirements, it is questionable whether this is really deregulation.