Before the first contractors appear on the construction site, the investor must comply with many formalities, including obtaining a building permit. But what if the documentation filed with the construction authorities proves incomplete or does not comply with the regulations? Does this necessarily bar completion of the project?
An amendment to the Construction Law of 27 March 2003 that came into effect as of 11 July 2003 was intended to simplify building permit proceedings, and thus speed up investment projects. One of the ways in which this was to be done was reducing the number of entities that were parties to the proceedings. A party is entitled to take an active part in the proceedings, and can therefore file motions or appeals. This clearly prolongs the proceedings.
The Supreme Administrative Court recently reviewed a case concerning unauthorised change of use of real estate. According to the construction permit it was supposed to be a residential part of a building, but was converted into rooms to be let.
The issue of unlawful acts and omissions generates some of the greatest controversy in the case law surrounding claims for damages against public authorities. It requires proof from which the court can conclude that a specific act or failure by public bodies was contrary to law.
If injury is caused by a defective normative act, it may be unclear where to seek damages—from the State Treasury or from local government—particularly in cases where the actions of these defendants may not be regarded as unlawful.
Pursuing compensation from the State Treasury for loss caused by issuance of an unlawful judgment is predicated on obtaining a finding in an earlier proceeding that the judgment was unlawful. But the regulations governing how to obtain such a predicate ruling generate serious doubts.