Earlier this year, we highlighted concerns about the forthcoming digitisation of construction proceedings. Unfortunately, our fears have materialized. The coming into force of the new Building Act has revealed how unprepared digital construction systems were, resulting in a government shuffle and a demand for an acute solution to the problem.

As an immediate solution, an amendment to the Construction Act was prepared by the Ministry of Regional Development, which was published in the Collection of Laws on 20 December under the number 437/2024 Coll. The content of this amendment, which has been called a “legislative and technical bypass” is the setting of a transitional period until 2027, when construction proceedings can proceed in parallel, both in paper form (as they existed before the new Construction Act) and in some cases in digital form.

However, leaving aside the troubled waters in the area of digitalization, which was one of the main supporting structures of the announced acceleration of construction proceedings, the Construction Act also contains a number of other provisions that have the ambition to speed up construction proceedings. Let us take a closer look at them.

Probably the most visible change is the concentration of various types of proceedings (mainly zoning and construction) into one so-called procedure for permitting a project (e.g. construction, land consolidation, landscaping, etc.). For conventional buildings, the applicant for a building permit will only have to initiate one procedure for the location of the building. The building authority will also be limited to 30 days (60 days in exceptional cases) by which it must issue the permit or refuse the application. This period may be further extended by a maximum of 30/60 days in exceptional cases.

The Building Act also simplifies the process of issuing binding opinions, i.e. opinions of administrative authorities for projects that affect various protected interests, such as the environment, the flow and safety of traffic on roads or heritage conservation. Where several such opinions are required, and the competent authorities are housed “under one roof” of a municipal or regional authority, it is the duty of these authorities to issue one coordinated binding opinion. Exceptions are situations where an Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA is also required. This has to be issued separately.

We certainly welcome this simplification. From our point of view it contributes to the overarching principle of “one office – one stamp” but unfortunately it does not fulfil it 100%. The original intention of the law was that only the building authority would be competent to issue opinions. However, this did not happen, and therefore in some cases builders can not avoid visiting other authorities before a permit is issued.

Although they have their drawbacks, we believe that the above changes will lead to a faster construction procedure in the first instance. However, the law also provides for the regulation of the appeals proceedings and judicial review, which is also expected to significantly speed up the process.

In appeal proceedings, for example, the appeal authorities will be obliged, if the appeal is well-founded, to amend the decision in question directly, not to annul it and return it to the first instance authority. This means that the so-called “official ping-pong”, where a superior and a subordinate authority toss a contested decision between them like a hot potato, will be eliminated. The above will typically apply to building (planning) permit proceedings. Conversely, it will not apply to proceedings initiated ex officio, such as proceedings to order the removal of a building.

Finally, in the context of judicial review, the administrative courts are entitled to change the contested decision of the administrative authority in obvious cases. This is a rare exception where administrative courts are entitled to substitute their own decisions for those of the administrative authorities.

The above changes are just a summary of the significant changes that the legislators hope will significantly speed up the permitting and placement of buildings. It remains to be seen whether expectations will be fulfilled in the coming years. It will undoubtedly be interesting to see how the decision-making practice of both the construction authorities and the administrative courts will approach the changes.