Publikacje

The Act of 4 December 2025 overhauls Poland’s Construction Law, streamlining procedures, cutting costs, and speeding projects—some changes already in force since January 2026.

Introduction: context, objectives, and dates of entry into force

Two months ago the Sejm passed legislation titled the “Act of 4 December 2025 amending the Construction Law and Certain Other Acts” (Journal of Laws 2025, item 1,847), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Being a part of the government’s so-called economic deregulation package, it introduced important changes to the Construction Law of 7 July 1994 (Construction Law, CL) affecting various stages of the construction project process, from designing to occupancy. Its declared objective is to simplify administrative procedures related to construction and make them more flexible, and thus to speed up the building process and reduce its costs for investors. The Act also introduces changes concerning the construction of protective structures, which will probably pose the greatest compliance challenge for construction project owners starting this year. Most of the changes to CL resulting from the Act entered into force on 7 January 2026, some already on 1 January 2026, while the rest will take effect on 20 September 2026.

More types of projects exempted from building permit/notification requirement

The Act expands the catalogue of construction projects that do not require a building permit, just a notification to authorities; and the catalogue of construction projects that require neither a building permit nor a notification. The most important changes in this respect concern the following types of facilities and construction works:

1. the construction of detached public utility buildings up to two-storey high with a usable area of up to 200 m² whose impact area is limited to the land plot on which they are located no longer requires a building permit, just a notification containing the plot/site development plan and building plan;
2. The construction of free-standing backyard protective structures (i.e. shelters or hideouts) with a usable area of up to 35 m² intended for the use of the residents of the given single-family house, together with the necessary installations and connections, whose impact area is limited to the given building plot, does not require a building permit, just a notification, and the same applies to reconstructions of such structures’ external partitions and structural elements that do not result in the impact area extending beyond the building plot, with other reconstructions requiring neither a building permit nor a notification;
3. the construction of free-standing telecommunications containers with a built-up area of up to 35 m² and of telecommunications containers that are not free-standing but are up to 3 metres high, in each case together with electricity and telecommunications installations and connections and related networks, does not require a building permit, just a notification;
4. (a) the construction of free-standing energy storage facilities with a nominal capacity of up to 30 kWh and the installation of such facilities requires neither a building permit nor a notification; (b) the construction of energy storage facilities with a nominal capacity from 30 kWh to 300 kWh does not require a building permit, just a notification containing the site/plot development plan vetted for fire safety, while the installation of such energy storage facilities on other facilities additionally requires the preparation of technical documentation containing solutions ensuring load-bearing performance and stability and the safety of people and property, vetted for fire safety); (c) the construction of free-standing energy storage facilities with a capacity of more than 300 kWh but not more than 2,000 kWh does not require a building permit, just a notification containing the site/plot development plan and building plan, vetted for fire safety, and the State Fire Service has to be notified of the completion of construction and commencement of use; while the installation of energy storage facilities with a capacity of more than 300 kWh and the construction of free-standing energy storage facilities with a capacity of more than 2,000 kWh requires a building permit;
5. the construction of holding tanks for rainwater or meltwater: (a) requires neither a building permit nor a notification in the case of tanks with a capacity of up to 5 m³, (b) notification is required in the case of the construction of such tanks with a capacity of more than 5 m³ but not more than 15 m³ or 30 m³ – only if they are related to agricultural production and complement the homestead development of an existing habitat plot; (c) the construction of swimming pools or ponds with a surface area of up to 50 m² next to single-family houses and private recreation buildings requires neither a permit nor a notification, and the same applies to swimming pools up to 15 m² and ponds up to 10 m² not deeper than 1 m in garden allotments;
6. the construction of retaining structures up to 0.8 m high requires neither a permit nor a notification;
7. the construction of culverts up to 20 m in length and 0.85-3 m in internal cross-section, and the construction of outlets to natural watercourses, do not require a building permit, just a notification;
8. the installation, on buildings, of technical devices or their elements (including radio communication installations), i.e. technical devices that do not constitute buildings, such as mobile telephony base stations, television stations, radio stations, radio-, radionavigation and radiolocation communication devices, consisting of radio-, power supply, and other equipment and antenna support structures, taller than 3 m but not taller than 12 m, does not require a building permit, just a notification, while the installation of devices of this kind that are lower than 3 m requires neither a building permit nor a notification;
9. the installation, on buildings, of wind energy generation equipment, together with masts, with a capacity not exceeding the capacity of micro-installations as defined in the Act of 20 February 2015 on renewable energy sources and with a total height of more than 3 m but not more than 12 m does not require a building permit, just a notification, while the installation of equipment of this kind that is lower than 3 m requires neither a building permit nor a notification, with the exception of buildings located in areas covered by a public airport general plan.

New requirements for appeals and complaints

A very important change from a legal perspective is the newly inserted Article 10b of CL, according to which an appeal against a decision issued on the basis of CL, or a complaint against an order issued on the basis of CL, must include: (a) objections to the contested decision or order, (b) the scope of the request being made in the appeal or complaint, and (c) an indication of evidence justifying the above request. In the event that the appeal or complaint does not meet the above requirements, the authority, no later than 14 days after the date of receipt of such a defective appeal or complaint, will call on the applicant to supplement the deficiencies within a period set by the authority and not shorter than 7 days, warning the complainant/applicant that failure to remove these deficiencies will result in the appeal or complaint being left unprocessed (Article 64 (2) of the Code of Administrative Procedure). “Objections to the contested decision or resolution” should be understood to mean indications of specific violations of the Construction Law or administrative procedure, and the complainant/appellant should also demonstrate the consequences of these violations on the content of the contested decision or resolution.

This change is aimed at curbing the frequent phenomenon of entities deemed as parties to a procedure filing appeals or complaints that are manifestly unfounded – purely and solely to block the project. It introduces additional requirements as to the content of appeals filed against decisions or orders issued as part of Construction Law procedures (e.g. regarding the award of a building permit) that go beyond the standard requirements resulting from Article 63 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, which stipulates that any application should contain an indication of the person from whom it originates, their address, and a specification of the request addressed to the authority, and Article 128 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, according to which an appeal does not require detailed justification and it is sufficient that it shows that the party making the appeal is not satisfied with the decision. However, it should be noted that the imposition of these additional requirements, particularly when it comes to appeals against decisions, does not relieve the second-instance authority of the obligation to examine the case thoroughly and to consider its substance, regardless of the scope of the objections raised by the appellant/complainant.

The new provision is, in fact, a repetition of a provision in Article 53(6) of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development of 2003 concerning appeals against decisions on the location of public-purpose projects, which has been in force for over 20 years. Therefore, the body of jurisprudence developed on the basis of that provision will be to a large extent relevant and useful in the application of the new one.

New regulations on collective protection facilities

Of major significance, too, are changes to CL concerning collective protection facilities (i.e. shelters, hideouts and places of emergency shelter). We already mentioned that the construction of backyard shelters or hideouts no longer requires a building permit. Even more important, the Act introduced changes related to the implementation of the provisions of the Act of 5 December 2024 on Civil Protection and Civil Defence (hereinafter referred to as ACPCD). These changes entered into force already on 1 January 2026, i.e., on the date of entry into force of the corresponding ACPCD provisions. Under Articles 93 to 95 of ACPCD: (a) protective structures (i.e. shelters or hideouts) must be built in new public utility buildings where this is both justified by the need to provide a place of shelter for local residents and possible given the technical and structural solutions present in the building; (b) the underground floors of multi-family residential buildings, detached garage buildings, and those public utility buildings which are not covered by the obligation to construct protective structures must be designed and constructed in such a way as to enable the organisation of places of emergency shelter (PES) in them; (c) underground transport structures within city limits, including tunnels and other metro, tram or underground railway facilities, must be designed and built in such a way as to ensure compliance with technical conditions for protective structures and technical conditions for the use of protective structures.

In order to implement the above principles, the following changes have been introduced to CL:

1. The rule has been introduced that in the case of a protective structure or a building designed in such a way as to enable the organisation of a PES in it – the scope and content of the building plan should also take into account the requirements of civil protection (Article 34(2a) of CL).
2. It is now clearly stated that the term “technical and building regulations” also covers the technical conditions, technical conditions of use, and technical conditions for the location of protective structures issued on the basis of ACPCD, i.e. contained in the “Regulation of the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration of 4 November 2025 on technical conditions for protective structures and technical conditions for their use and location.” On the other hand, the requirements for PES, which are also de facto technical conditions, set out in the “Regulation of the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration of 9 July 2025 on the conditions for organising, and on the requirements to be met by, places of emergency shelter,” are no longer included in the term “technical and building regulations,” which has various consequences under CL, mainly boiling down to the fact that the competent authorities have limited possibilities of enforcing them. It should also be remembered that under CL, before deciding whether to issue a building permit, the administrative authority checks compliance with technical and building regulations, only of the plot development plan (the above-mentioned regulations on technical conditions for the location of protective structures will apply here), whereas  when it comes to the building design, it only checks its completeness and compliance with provisions of the local spatial development plan and other acts of local law, or a decision on land development conditions or a resolution to determine the location of a housing project, as well as with environmental protection requirements, but not with technical and building regulations, nor with the requirements of civil protection referred to in point 1) above. This is a clear loophole. It has the effect of limiting the competent authority’s oversight over the inclusion, in the building plan, of technical conditions for protective structures and PES.
3. An application for a building permit to construct one of the buildings referred to in Articles 93-95 of ACPCD should include a statement from the project owner about existence of their obligation to build a protective structure (shelter or hideout) of a specific resistance category and capacity inside it, or to construct the building in such a way as to enable the organisation of a PES of a specific capacity in it, or about the absence of such an obligation, as the case may be (Article 33(2)(13)(b) of CL). This means that it is up to the project owner, not only to determine, on their own, not only whether they are obliged to design and construct a protective structure in the proposed building, or to comply with the requirements for the organisation of a PES in it, but also to indicate the required resistance category of the protective structure and its required capacity (i.e., the number of people who can use it), or the required capacity of the PES, and to declare all this under pain of criminal liability. The problem here, as indicated in our earlier articles on the subject, is that based on the existing provisions of ACPCD and relevant implementing regulations, it is practically impossible for the project owner to determine the existence and specific scope of the above obligations on their own, without the involvement of the competent administrative authority (civil protection authority), but the legal basis has not been created yet for the authority’s actions in this respect, e.g. the issuance of clearances or certificates. Therefore, the submission, by the project owner, of such a statement together with the building permit application is extremely risky in the current legal situation.
4. Before issuing a decision on a building permit application or a separate decision regarding a plot/site development plan and building plan, the architecture and construction administrative authority checks whether the above mentioned statement by the project owner has been included with the building permit application (Article 35(1)(3a)(b)) and, if not, may order that it be submitted before issuing a decision.

Liberalisation of construction site supervision, occupancy permit process

A newly inserted Article 51a of CL introduces a so-called “yellow card mechanism,” whereby if the construction supervision authority determines that construction works are being carried out in a manner that significantly deviates from the arrangements and conditions set out in the building permit, in the plot/site development plan, in the building plan, or in relevant regulations, the authority may (i.e., in principle optionally) merely instruct the project owner about the need to bring the construction works to a state consistent with the arrangements and conditions specified in the building permit, in the relevant plan or in relevant regulations, instead of immediately reaching for the “red card,” i.e. ordering the suspension of construction works, demanding additional documents and initiating a procedure under Article 51 of CL, which may lead to an order to desist from further works, to demolish, or to bring the structure or works to a compliant state.

 In the event that the construction supervision authority issues the project owner with such an instruction, this instruction will be entered in the inspection report and in the construction site logbook. Then, after 60 days from the date of the instruction, or at the request of the project owner before the expiry of this period, the authority checks whether the construction works have been brought to a state consistent with the arrangements and conditions specified in the building permit, the relevant plan, or relevant regulations. If it determines that the project owner has not fulfilled the above obligations despite having been instructed to do so, the construction supervision authority will obligatorily apply the provisions of Articles 50-51 of CL, from an order to suspend construction works to more far-reaching consequences.

The Act also makes the occupancy permit process easier:

1. the obligation to notify, before obtaining the occupancy permit, the State Sanitary Inspection and the State Fire Service of the completion of a building and of the intention to commence its use, as well as to obtain the positions of these authorities on the construction’s compliance with the plan and their declarations of lack of objection or comments, has been limited to apply only to cases where the land development plan, building plan, or technical plan already had to be vetted for compliance with hygiene and health protection requirements (by the State Sanitary Inspection) or with fire safety requirements (by the State Fire Service) (Article 56(1) of CL);
2. the vetting of the technical plan by the construction supervision authority as part of the procedure to notify of construction completion or to grant an occupancy permit now merely consists in checking whether the plan includes, as supporting documentation, statements from architects and documents attesting to their professional qualifications (Article 57(4) of CL), and no longer involves an analysis of the content of this plan, and after the completion of the procedure, the technical plan should be returned to the project owner because the authority does not need it while it may be useful for the project owner (Article 57(8) of CL).

Simplified legalisation and remedial procedures expanded to more cases

Where a building has been constructed in breach of the relevant regulations, CL provides, depending on the type and duration of the breach, for the conduct either of a “regular” legalisation procedure (Articles 48a – 49d) or a simplified legalisation procedure (Articles 49f – 49i). The latter allows for the legalisation of an illegal structure free of charge and without the need to develop project documentation and to examine compliance with local spatial development arrangements. Until now, the simplified procedure was available only in cases where at least 20 years have elapsed since the completion of construction. However, the Act has introduced the option to conduct a simplified legalisation procedure (ex officio or at the request of the owner) already 10 years after the completion of construction (Article 50(6)(2) of CL) for construction works carried out in a manner that significantly deviated from the arrangements and conditions set out in the building permit, in the plot/site development plan, or in the building plan.

The Act also introduced the obligation to conduct a remedial procedure (Article 51 of CL) in the case of construction works completed at least 10 years earlier which had been carried out: (a) without the required building permit or notification, or (b) in a way that may cause a threat to the safety of people or property or a threat to the environment, or (c) on the basis of a notification made in breach of the regulations that allow for a notification to be submitted instead of obtaining a building permit, or (d) in a manner that materially deviates from relevant regulations. In the case of such works, the construction supervision authority checks (ex officio) whether they pose a threat to human life or health and, depending on the findings, applies the provisions of Article 51(1)(1) or (2) of CL, i.e.: (i) orders demolition of the building or a part thereof, or its restoration to a previous state, or (ii) imposes an obligation to perform certain activities or works in order to bring the construction works to a state of compliance with the law, setting a deadline for their performance, and then verifies the performance of this obligation and either declares that the obligation has been performed (if it has) or, in the event of failure to perform the obligation within the required timeframe, issues an order to desist from further works, to demolish the  structure or a part thereof, or to restore  it to a previous state.

Both changes are intended to tidy up and clarify the legal status of older projects built in breach of the law.

Derogations from technical and building regulations simpler to obtain

Another notable change, which will enter into force on 20 September 2026, concerns the procedure for obtaining certain derogations from technical and building regulations (Article 9(7) and (8) of CL). At the moment, alternative solutions that constitute deviations from technical and building regulations require a consent in the form of a decision issued by the architecture and construction administrative authority upon prior authorisation from the competent minister to be obtained before the issuance of a redevelopment or change-of-use permit. After the change, the following will be sufficient: (a) the consent of the voivodship sanitary inspector – for deviations from hygiene and health protection requirements, (b) a positive opinion from the voivodship inspector of environmental protection – for deviations from environmental protection requirements, or (c) the consent of the voivodship sanitary inspector in consultation with the competent district labour inspector – for deviations from occupational health and safety requirements. However, the alternative solutions proposed by the project owner in this mode must not pose a threat to human life or the safety of property, and in the case of public utility buildings and multi-family residential buildings – must not limit their availability for use by people with special needs, and must not cause a deterioration in health and sanitary conditions, functional conditions, or the state of the environment.

The change will help speed up projects, but its impact is limited to redevelopments and changes of use of existing buildings.

New definitions

The Act has introduced a number of definitions into CL. Only one is already in force  (from 7 January 2026), namely that of a shed (wiata), which is defined as a structure that is not fully separated from the surrounding space through built partitions but which is permanently connected to the ground, has foundations and a roof. This is a useful change, because until now the concept of shed, which has practical relevance also in property tax regulations, for example, was not explicitly defined, causing interpretive  uncertainty.

The other new definitions will come into effect on 20 September 2026. They include nine definitions transferred to CL from the “Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 12 April 2002 on the technical conditions to be met by buildings and their location” (Journal of Laws 2022, item 1225, as amended), namely: residential building, multi-family residential building, outbuilding, public utility building, collective housing building, individual recreation building, single-family housing, homestead development, and building plot.

The last of the new definitions comes from another legal act: an energy storage facility is to be understood in the meaning of Article 3(10k) of the “Act of 10 April 1997 – Energy Law” (Journal of Laws 2024, item 266, as amended), i.e. an installation enabling the storage of electricity and its introduction into the power grid, but also an installation that allows for the storage of electricity and its introduction into the electrical system of a given building, or for the direct supply of power to construction equipment.

New dates for e-logs

The Act pushes back by two years, until the end of 2031, the requirement to use digital construction site logbooks. 31 December 2031 is also the new deadline for the owners and managers of buildings to implement digital building logbooks.

Transitional provisions

The Act contains transitional provisions (Article 7). They state that the new provisions of CL (i.e., those amended by the Act) apply to construction projects in respect of which, before the date of entry into force of the Act (i.e. 1 January or 7 January 2026, respectively):

1) an application for a building permit, an application for the issuance of a separate decision regarding a site/plot development plan and building plan, or an application for a building permit alteration, has been submitted and not processed, or

2) a notification has been made of construction, or of the performance of other construction works, where a building permit is not required, to which the architecture and construction administrative authority has not raised an objection or the deadline for filing an objection has not expired.

The new provisions of CL also apply to cases referred to in Article 50(6) of CL, i.e. to legalisation or remedial procedures concerning constructions and works completed at least 10 years earlier that were ongoing at the time of the Act’s entry into force.

On the other hand, to pending appeals/complaints against decisions/resolutions (Article 12 of the Act) filed before 7 January 2026, previous CL provisions continue to apply, so there is no need to submit the additional elements that are now required.

Concluding remarks

Most of the changes should be viewed positively. They represent a correct response to genuine demands from project owners and architects, and can indeed simplify and accelerate construction projects.

The one regrettable exception is the requirement imposed on the project owner to make a statement under pain of criminal liability regarding the existence and detailed scope of their obligation to construct a protective structure or to arrange a place of emergency shelter in the proposed building – despite the fact that proper fulfilment of this requirement is impossible under existing laws and regulations. This provision, not only passes on to the project owner a task that, by its very nature, should be carried out mainly by civil protection authorities (assessing whether the obligation arises and determining its scope), but also burdens the project owner with the risk of criminal liability in the event that the data they submit are considered incorrect in the future.