In today's article from the series entitled "Mornings for Construction Workers", we discuss an important issue from the point of view of construction supervision practice, concerning the method of calculating the deadline for submitting an application for legalization of unauthorized construction in the event of filing an appeal against the decision to suspend construction.
This issue was the subject of interpretation disputes, which were ultimately resolved in the latest case law of administrative courts, including the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 9 July 2025, file reference II OSK 362/23. The General Office of Building Control also took this position, presenting it in its series "Interesting interpretations of the GUNB.".
Construction Law Regulations
Pursuant to Article 48a, Section 1 of the Building Law, an investor, owner, or manager of a building may submit an application for legalization within 30 days of the date of service of the decision to suspend construction. At the same time, Article 48a, Section 3 of the Building Law states that if an appeal is filed against the decision to suspend construction, this period runs from the date on which the decision becomes final.
This provision has raised doubts as to whether "finality" refers to the moment the second-instance body issues the decision or the moment it is served on the party. For several years, the case law of provincial administrative courts has consistently held that the deadline for filing a legalization application begins to run only upon the service of the party's decision by the appellate body issued after considering the appeal.
Why is issuing a resolution alone not enough?
In its justification, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that Article 48a, section 1 of the Building Law links the commencement of the period for submitting an application for legalization with the delivery of a decision to suspend construction, and the legislator does not differentiate in this respect between decisions issued by the first and second instance bodies.
The court also referred to the general principles of administrative procedure, pointing out that an administrative act produces legal effects only after it has been effectively served on the party. Only then does it enter into legal circulation and become binding.
The Supreme Administrative Court further emphasized that adopting a different interpretation would lead to unacceptable practical consequences. The deadline for filing a legalization application could begin to run even before the investor receives information about the resolution of the appeal.
Practical importance for investors
The interpretation adopted by the administrative courts has significant practical implications. It means that filing an appeal against a decision to suspend construction postpones the commencement of the 30-day period specified in Article 48a, Section 1 of the Construction Law. This period should be counted from the date the investor receives the decision of the second-instance body adjudicating the appeal, regardless of the date of its issuance.
As a result, the investor retains the full period provided for by the legislator for making a decision on initiating the legalization procedure and preparing the required documentation.
In summary, we hope that after the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling of 9 July 2025, which, while not binding in other cases, will in practice eliminate similar doubts. This means that in cases where an appeal is filed against a decision to suspend construction, the deadline for filing a legalization application will be counted only from the date the party receives the decision of the second-instance authority.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of June 15, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
