In today's article from the series entitled "Tuesday Mornings for Construction Workers", we were once again inspired by the interpretations of the Main Office of Building Control ("GUNB"), from the educational series entitled "Interesting Interpretations of GUNB", which this time explained how to evaluate a repeated notification of completion of construction.
This topic has a very practical dimension, as situations arise in which the construction supervision authority objects to a construction completion notification. The question then arises whether the investor can resubmit an amended notification for the same project, or whether the previous objection decision creates res judicata , which prevents the case from being reconsidered.
Notification of completion of construction – basic procedure
Under the Construction Law, a building whose construction required a building permit or construction notification may be put into operation after the construction supervisory authority has been notified of its completion. Exceptions to this rule are provided for in Articles 55 and 57 of the Construction Law.
If the construction supervision authority does not raise any objections within 14 days of receiving the notification , the investor may start using the facility.
This deadline is substantive and preclusive, meaning that after its expiry, the authority loses the right to file an objection. Importantly, the objection must be in the form of an administrative decision, not a simple letter .
Can I re-notify?
In the event of an objection being raised by a construction supervision authority, investors often wonder whether it is possible to re-submit the notification – after the deficiencies identified by the authority have been removed – or whether such a decision should be appealed.
Current interpretative practice indicates that a second, amended notice of completion of construction is permissible. It does not violate the principle of res judicata , or res judicata.
For this to be the case, however, there must be a change in the factual circumstances of the case . In other words, the new notification cannot be identical to the previous one, but it must address the deficiencies or irregularities identified in the opposition decision.
Why is it not res judicata?
The principle of res judicata occurs when an authority issues a decision in a case that has already been legally resolved by another final decision, in the case of:
- subject,
- the subject of the case,
- factual circumstances,
- legal status.
In the case of a re-notification of construction completion, the case is not completely identical. A change in the factual circumstances—resulting, for example, from supplementing documentation or addressing identified irregularities—means that this is essentially a new administrative case.
As a consequence, the construction supervision authority should re-assess the notification and – if it does not raise an objection within the statutory deadline – the investor may start using the facility.
What if the investor disagrees with the objection?
If the investor believes that the construction supervision authority is wrong and that another notification would be identical, i.e. there would be no change in the factual circumstances, then an appeal against such a decision should be filed with the second instance authority.
The appeal must be filed within 14 days of the date of delivery of the objection.
Practical experiences
In one of the cases recently handled by our Law Firm, this very dilemma arose – should we file an appeal or should we correct the irregularities indicated in the objection issued by the district construction supervision inspector?.
After analysing the matter with the client, as well as after undertaking additional discussions with the authority itself, we came to the conclusion that a better solution in this case would be to comply with the allegations raised in the objection, make changes to the investment and submit a new notification rather than to submit an appeal.
Summary
Resubmitting a notification of completion of construction is permissible and does not violate the principle of res judicata , provided, however, that the factual circumstances of the case have changed, e.g. by removing the irregularities indicated by the authority.
For investors, this means that an objection by the authority does not always end the procedure – in many cases it is possible to restart it after appropriate corrections to the documentation or the investment status.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of March 9, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
