In today's article from the series entitled "Tuesday Mornings for Construction", we return to the topic of local development plans, due to the interesting rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court issued on December 8, 2025 (reference number II OSK 353/24, II OSK 3165/24, II OSK 3166/24, II OSK 3167/24, II OSK 15/25, II OSK 95/25, II OSK 125/25, II OSK 226/25, II OSK 227/25, II OSK 371/25, II OSK 372/25, II OSK 435/25, II OSK 1045/25 and II OSK 1164/25 " Ruling "), which refer to the constitutional aspects of determining the planning fee.
We have already devoted an entire article to the planning fee itself, so for more details please visit #267 .
Legal basis for determining the planning fee
Pursuant to Article 37, Section 1 of the Spatial Planning and Development Act of 27 March 2003 ("SDP"), the planning fee is determined as of the date of sale of the property. The basis for calculating the fee is the increase in the property's value , defined as the difference between the property's value determined based on the land use designation after the adoption or amendment of the local plan and its value determined taking into account the land use designation prior to that change and the actual use of the property.
At the same time, the legislator introduced special regulations regarding real estate that was previously covered by local plans adopted before 1 January 1995. This issue is regulated in Article 87 section 3a of the Spatial Development Act, in the wording applicable from 7 January 2023 (based on the Act of 16 November 2022 amending the Act on Spatial Planning and Development).
The problem of the scope of protection of property owners
The amendment to Article 87, Section 3a of the Spatial Development Act introduced a solution according to which special rules for determining the increase in real estate value were introduced only in cases where the real estate was covered by a detailed local spatial development plan before 1 January 1995, adopted on the basis of the previously applicable Act of 12 July 1984 on Spatial Planning (i.e. Journal of Laws of 1989, No. 17, item 99, as amended). This provision, however, did not cover real estate that was covered by the then-applicable plans during the same period, which the Act of 12 July 1984 referred to as general plans .
In practice, this led to situations where the zoning fee was determined without taking into account the land use designation specified in previous general plans, even though these acts also shaped the development of the property and could have a real impact on its value. Consequently, an unjustified distinction was made, with no basis for explaining the reasons for omitting the fee.
Position of the Supreme Administrative Court
In its ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court indicated that the amendment to Article 87, Section 3a of the Spatial Development Act constitutes an example of so-called " secondary unconstitutionality ." The Supreme Administrative Court noted the impermissible modification of the scope of entities protected from the possibility of charging planning fees. The court found that limiting protection solely to properties covered by former "detailed" plans was arbitrary and unjustified by applicable constitutional principles. It also pointed out that the legislator had repeated a legal solution that had already been challenged by the Constitutional Tribunal in its judgment of February 9, 2010, file reference P 58/08.
The rulings also cover situations where the increase in property value resulted from its actual use, but was only confirmed by the municipality in the new local spatial development plan. In such cases, the problematic "re-increase" of property value , even though it had already increased due to the actions of the owner or perpetual user.
In its rulings, the Supreme Administrative Court also emphasized that the division into general and detailed plans was essentially abolished by the Spatial Development Act of 7 July 1994, which recognized all these acts as local spatial development plans. Thus, the legislature abandoned the previous distinction and equalized the effects of these planning acts. Therefore, it is inadmissible to reinstate this division after nearly 30 years solely for the purpose of determining planning fees.
This action was deemed a violation of the principle of a democratic rule of law, as it would undermine the previously implemented abolition of this distinction. The court also emphasized the need to protect property owners, who should not be burdened with new public law obligations as a result of subsequent legislative changes after such a long period of time.
Consequences of pro-constitutional interpretation
Consequently, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the administrative court is both entitled and obliged to refuse to apply the provision in its unconstitutional, restrictive wording and to provide a pro-constitutional interpretation.
This means that when determining the increase in real estate value, as referred to in Article 37, Section 1 of the Spatial Development Act, the land use designation specified in each local spatial development plan adopted before January 1, 1995, , regardless of whether it was a general plan or a "detailed" plan. Thus, the Court emphasized the need to balance the power of previous planning acts based on their actual effect, i.e., the actual use of the property. Although the legislature had previously decided to distinguish between these two types of plans, the attempt to apply this distinction to determine planning fees was deemed unconstitutional.
Summary
These rulings have significant implications for the practice of determining one-off planning fees. These decisions contribute to the broader issue of the relationship between spatial planning and the protection of property owners' rights, and confirm that determining planning fees must take into account the full context of historical planning regulations , provided they influenced the land's intended use.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of January 12, 2026.
Author:
Series editor:
