One authority, one procedure,
one decision.

Getting a building permit in the Czech Republic often takes years today. For more complex apartment buildings, preparation and permitting can stretch to 7 to 10 years. The process is complicated, confusing and the outcome uncertain. That has a direct impact on housing affordability, construction prices and the development of municipalities.

The amendment aims to change this. Its goal is to speed up and clarify construction permitting, remove unnecessary administrative steps and set clear accountability for decisions. This is not another minor patch to the system, but an effort to create a more stable and predictable environment for citizens, municipalities, officials and builders.

Yes, and positively. The amendment simplifies renovations and smaller projects, cuts unnecessary paperwork and reduces the number of obligations that burden small builders today.

The goal is for ordinary home improvements not to be a bureaucratic marathon. For simpler projects, the process should be proportionate to their scale and risk, so people don't have to handle the same amount of paperwork as for complex large projects.

On the contrary. The system should be clearer and more predictable. Fewer parallel proceedings, fewer vague requirements and clearly defined responsibility of the authority mean that even people who build or renovate once in a lifetime will find their way around the process more easily.

It is important that a citizen knows what to submit, to whom, and when they can expect a result. The amendment therefore aims to ensure that a builder does not go from office to office, but handles their project in a single, understandable process.

No. The amendment does not introduce building without rules. It keeps the requirements for safety, the protection of public interests, compliance with the zoning plan and the technical requirements for buildings.

The change is that oversight should be proportionate, coordinated and not needlessly repeated. If a particular question has already been assessed in spatial planning, it should not be reopened at every further stage of the procedure.

Yes. The amendment does not take away neighbours' right to defend their property, privacy or living conditions. Neighbours will be able to raise objections if a building directly affects their rights.

The point of the change is for objections to be specific, substantive and filed on time. The goal is not to allow endless blocking of construction through general disapproval, but the ability to defend oneself against a genuine interference with one's rights must remain.

If a project affects ownership rights, access, sunlight, privacy or another specific right, the neighbour can object. But if someone raises general disapproval with no specific impact on their rights, that should not be a reason to unduly prolong the procedure.

Yes, judicial protection remains in place. The Building Act sets a one-month deadline for a lawsuit against a building authority's decision, running from the notification of the decision.

This deadline is important for legal certainty. If a project is to have a predictable timeline, it must be clear by when a decision can be challenged and when the matter can be considered settled.

The amendment does not change the substantive scope of the public's rights. The public has a key role in spatial planning, where it is decided whether and where to build.

Construction proceedings then deal mainly with the technical execution of a specific project, which must comply with the planning documentation. The goal is to curb obstruction tools, not meaningful public participation.

No. The protection of nature and the landscape remains in place. Some processes are integrated into the decision-making of building authorities, others remain within the competence of the authorities concerned — for example in sensitive areas or under special protection regimes.

The change is meant to prevent the protection of individual interests from being applied unpredictably, repeatedly or disproportionately. This is not a weakening of protection, but better coordination of it.

No. The protection of monuments remains in place. Historic centres, monument reservations, monument zones, immovable monuments and their buffer zones remain under a special protection regime.

The amendment is meant to make processes clearer and set clearer accountability for decisions. The goal is not to allow insensitive interventions, but to ensure that the protection of cultural heritage works expertly, predictably and within reasonable deadlines.

Illegal buildings are not permissible under the new act either. However, the amendment better distinguishes between a serious breach of the rules and a less serious lapse.

The goal is to act firmly where necessary, while avoiding disproportionately harsh sanctions in cases where they would make no sense. Simplifying the legal route should also reduce the incentive to build without a permit.

Yes. The amendment strengthens the principle of protecting good faith. People do not understand why they should bear the harshest consequences — for example the threat of having a building demolished — if they themselves broke no rules and bought the property trusting that it had been duly permitted.

The law should distinguish between the actual culprit and a person who became the victim of a system error or of their legal predecessor's conduct. This is not an excuse for illegal buildings, but a fairer assessment of specific situations.

Yes. Building law should be able not only to oversee, but also to help quickly. After natural disasters it is important that people can return to normal life and restore their housing without unnecessary delays.

The amendment therefore allows faster procedures where recovery makes sense and there is no risk of repeating the same problem. The goal is a practical system that helps people in crisis situations.

Parcel lockers for delivery services are to be explicitly classified among minor structures in the free regime — that is, without the need for a building permit.

Installing them is to remain administratively simple, but basic rules — for example for safety, access or connection to infrastructure — still apply. They must also be built in line with the zoning plan. The goal is a clear and uniform solution for municipalities, operators and citizens.

The principle of “one procedure, one authority, one decision”. The builder no longer has to go from office to office collecting individual stamps with no clear accountability for the result.

The amendment is meant to replace the chaining of opinions with one coordinated process. The builder should have a single partner, clearer deadlines and a more predictable outcome.

The speed-up should come mainly from removing duplication. What has already been — or should have been — assessed in spatial planning should not be assessed again in the construction proceedings.

At the same time, deadlines are reinforced, the opinions of the authorities concerned are integrated, and the building authority's responsibility for the final decision is set out more clearly. The goal is to reduce the number of cases sent back, repeated requests for additions and procedural loops.

It means that a project is to be assessed according to the factual and legal situation as of the day the application is filed. This is crucial for the builder's legal certainty.

Today it can happen that during a long procedure the conditions change, the documentation has to be reworked, recirculated and reheard. A fixed decisive date is meant to prevent the procedure from endlessly returning to the start because of changes the builder could not have known about when filing the application.

Yes. The amendment envisages that, together with the application, the builder may also submit a draft decision, including its reasoning.

It does not mean the builder decides for themselves. The decision is always made by the building authority. But for well-prepared applications such a draft can help considerably, because the authority gets a structured basis and does not have to create everything from scratch.

The amendment sets responsibility more clearly where it belongs. The designer and other authorised persons are responsible for the correctness and the fulfilment of technical requirements in the project documentation.

The building authority should not be a co-designer. Its task is not to professionally recalculate every specialised part of the project, but to assess the legality of the project, the protection of public interests and compliance with what it is supposed to evaluate under the law.

No. It means a better division of responsibility. The professional guarantee for the technical parts of the documentation is borne by an authorised person who carries professional liability.

This allows the authority to focus on what is its role: legality, public interests, procedural correctness and the project's compliance with the requirements of the law. This should increase both the quality and the speed of decision-making.

It is necessary to distinguish between the authorities concerned and the owners or operators of public transport and technical infrastructure. For the authorities concerned, the Building Act assumes they generally have 30 days to issue an opinion or binding opinion; in complex cases the deadline can be extended.

If they do not respond within the deadline, deemed consent without conditions may take effect under the conditions set by law. However, this does not apply in certain sensitive environmental cases, such as EIA, where the law explicitly excludes deemed consent.

For operators of public transport and technical infrastructure, it is legally inaccurate to claim automatically that the same deemed consent applies in all cases as for the authorities concerned.

Even here, though, the amendment is meant to reinforce deadlines and predictability. Network operators are to respect the deadlines for their opinions, typically 30 days and in particularly complex cases 60 days. The key point is that the builder does not wait indefinitely.

Simplification does not mean weaker safety. With fire safety, the goal is to simplify the process, not the standard of protection.

The fire service has reassessed the scope of its requirements for buildings, documentation and the way matters are handled. Buildings and processes should be better differentiated according to fire risk. For simpler buildings and projects with minimal fire risk, an administrative simplification of procedures is expected, while for buildings with higher fire risk the application of fire-protection requirements remains essential.

A binding opinion from the state fire-supervision authority remains in place for buildings where the fire risk is significant. These are typically tunnels, hospitals, shopping centres or other buildings that are difficult to evacuate in the event of a fire.

The change therefore does not concern the standard of protection, but the smoothness of the procedure and the removal of unnecessary administrative steps where the risk is not high.

Yes. The amendment strengthens the use of authorised inspectors. Already today, an expert report by an authorised inspector can be attached to the application, certifying that the building matches its permit, is fit for use and meets construction requirements.

The amendment allows authorised inspectors to issue the final approval decision as well. This can significantly speed up the final stage, which is often crucial for builders because of mortgages, the land registry or dealing with the property.

Proceedings already under way will be completed under the transitional provisions, so they are not needlessly complicated or sent back to the start.

The goal is a smooth transition, not a halt to ongoing projects. If some administrative procedures are abolished by the amendment, they will be discontinued, or their usable parts will be used in further decision-making.

The goal is the exact opposite. Today the biggest source of disputes is the lack of clarity, inconsistent practice and the repeated procedural sending-back of cases.

Clearer rules, fewer obstructions, firmer accountability and an emphasis on proportionality should reduce the incentive for tactical disputes. Judicial protection remains in place, but the system should be more predictable.

It is the principle that if a project can be adjusted to meet the legal requirements, the building authority should preferably set conditions and issue the permit rather than reject the application outright.

This is not a novelty that circumvents the law. The legal order already knows a similar principle. The amendment explicitly confirms and clarifies it. If the conditions cannot be met, the application is of course rejected.

The amendment sets a basic time frame of 6 months for the field part of an archaeological survey before construction, with the option to extend it by agreement.

The goal is greater predictability. Today surveys can take an unpredictably long time, which complicates investment planning, the booking of construction capacity and the drawing of subsidies. The protection of archaeological heritage remains in place, but the process should be more manageable in time.

The goal is to simplify officials' work, not add more bureaucracy. The amendment removes duplicate processes, repeated assessments and unclear boundaries of responsibility.

Officials should have clearer methodology, stable backing and a more understandable process. Reducing paperwork should help officials focus on the genuinely essential assessment of a project.

Responsibility will be borne by the building authority as a whole. This should increase the clarity of decision-making and end the shifting of responsibility between individual bodies.

Clear responsibility is important for builders and for the officials themselves. Everyone should know who is to handle the matter, at what stage and with what outcome.

The designer is responsible for the correctness of the project documentation and for meeting the technical requirements. If they cannot prepare a particular part themselves, they must bring in a specialist who is responsible for their part.

At the same time, the designer is not responsible for deviations that arose during construction without their consent. The amendment thus more precisely distinguishes what is the designer's responsibility and what is the role of the building authority.

Yes. Implementation is to proceed in a managed way, with methodological support and in cooperation with ministries, municipalities, regions and other players.

Part of the preparation is communication with local governments, building authorities, municipal secretaries, regions and the officials themselves. The goal is for the transition not to be abrupt and for officials to have timely access to information, methodology and contacts for resolving practical questions.

The current system already runs into staffing problems today. Some authorities are chronically understaffed and a large share of officials are at or near retirement age. The new system is meant to enable the sharing of capacity, interchangeability and unified methodological support.

The act is therefore designed to simplify the system, not burden it. Fewer duplicate steps and clear responsibility should reduce the demands on capacity.

Building authority officials are meant to be a key asset of the new system. The reform aims to create a more professional and stable environment in which officials will have clearer methodology, better interchangeability and professional backing.

The transition is to take place gradually, in accordance with labour-law rules and with regard to the practical functioning of the authorities. The goal is not to lose experienced people, but to give them more stable conditions for handling a demanding agenda.

This question is part of the implementation project. It addresses the transfer of files, digitalisation and the setting of unified procedures so that the continuity of records of construction documentation is not disrupted.

The goal is a well-thought-out transition that takes into account the practical impacts in the regions and allows authorities to continue working without losing documentation or procedural continuity.

Speed is not a goal in itself. The goal is to remove unnecessary delays, duplication and repetition.

On the contrary, the quality of decision-making should improve, because relevant interests are assessed in a coordinated way, responsibility is clearly defined and authorities receive more unified methodology.

The selection procedures will be open and transparent. The employee will hold two relationships at the same time: a service relationship as director of the regional Office for Spatial Development or head of a territorial office, while at the same time still being an employee of the relevant municipality or region, where they will continue to carry out the agenda of the building authority under delegated powers. Candidates apply for the selection procedure voluntarily; in order to ensure motivation and to compensate for the time commitment, the Act provides for the possibility of drawing a salary at the regional Office for Spatial Development and concurrently from the current employer.

Given that neither the regional Office for Spatial Development nor the territorial office will be established in 2027, the director or head will, in this role, take part in the organisational activities of the office. At the same time, it must be mentioned that in many cases no overlap need occur at all if a new manager is selected.

We guarantee that existing conditions will not deteriorate. Total remuneration, i.e. the base salary and the personal bonus, will be preserved. The pay grade and step do not change, but in practice they will increase, since the pay table under Government Regulation No. 304/2014 Coll. is higher than the pay table for self-governing units under Government Regulation No. 341/2017 Coll.

The personal bonus remains at the same amount, but at the same time its sum with the base salary is not to be higher. At the same time, however, it is guaranteed that the personal bonus will not be reduced by the amount by which an employee's base salary increases as a result of being placed in a different pay grade or step or as a result of salary indexation.

The decisive factor will be the predominant scope of work. If an employee mainly performs an agenda that is being transferred to the state building administration, they will transfer together with this agenda under the rules of the Labour Code. For mixed workloads, for example a 50-50 split, individual cases will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The aim is to find a solution between the new management of the state building administration, the existing employer and the employee concerned, so as to ensure both the performance of the agenda and fair working conditions.

If the agenda does not predominate, the transfer will not be automatic. However, even in these cases an employee may express an interest in working in the state building administration, and the situation will be addressed according to the needs of the system and the possibilities of the given office.

If an employee primarily performs an agenda that is transferring to the state, the transfer of rights and obligations will take place by operation of law under Section 338 et seq. of the Labour Code. The law guarantees that the existing total remuneration is maintained.

In more complex situations, the procedure will be addressed individually, particularly where an employee performs several different agendas or where the predominant part of their work is not clearly tied to the building administration. The implementation will also include communication and recruitment, so that the new offices are adequately staffed and so that the experience of existing officials can be put to use.

The number of transferring employees will not be determined mechanically in advance. The basic criterion will be the predominant exercise of the agenda being transferred to the state building administration.

Officials from the authorities concerned, for example in the environmental field, will not automatically become officials issuing the entire building permit after integration. They will continue to exercise their expertise as specialists in a particular protected public interest. Their expert output will then be taken up by an official of the building authority, who conducts the proceedings and issues the resulting decision.

In 2027, the integration of the agendas concerned will mainly affect the Office for Spatial Development, that is, in particular reserved constructions and methodological activities. At the territorial level, the new integrated model will not become operational until 1 January 2028.

Until then, municipal and regional building authorities, as well as the authorities concerned at the territorial level, will in principle proceed in the existing manner. In 2027, binding opinions and other opinions will be issued where required by the rules in force for the transitional period.

The motivational and personnel tools are not set out in detail directly by the Act. They will form part of the implementation, the management of the new authorities, and human resources work.

In 2027, both municipal and regional building authorities will continue to operate, as will the authorities concerned in the territory. Organisational changes to regional and municipal building authorities will not take effect until 1 January 2028.

One official will not carry out the entire process. The protection of interests will be assessed by an integrated specialist, and only then will the building authority official who conducts the proceedings build on the specialist's output.

The rule is that the agenda is always carried out by an official who has passed the appropriate special professional competence examination or civil service examination, with an official being permitted to carry out only those activities for which they are authorised.

In spatial planning, too, the prevailing nature of the work will be decisive. At the same time, an important exception applies: the preparation of planning documentation is to become an independent power of municipalities and regions.

Employees who will prepare planning documentation for a municipality or region under independent powers will therefore remain employees of that municipality or region. Those whose agenda is to be transferred to the state building administration will be dealt with under the rules for the transfer of agendas.

It depends on the specific activity. The preparation of planning documentation for municipalities and regions will newly fall within their independent powers. These activities will therefore be carried out by municipalities and regions.

The state building administration will perform only those spatial planning activities that remain with it or are entrusted to it under the new legislation. The specific arrangements will form part of the implementation.

The basic guarantee is that the transition will not worsen officials' salary conditions. In addition, the new system is to offer a more stable environment, unified methodological support, better substitutability and a clearer division of responsibility.

The aim is not to transfer more uncertainty onto officials, but on the contrary to create a professional state building administration in which individual authorities will not be isolated and overburdened without the possibility of sharing capacities.

Yes, provided that the prevailing part of their work consists in carrying out an agenda that is transferring to the state building administration. The transfer therefore does not concern only officials who have passed the special professional competence examination, but employees in general who participate in carrying out this agenda.

Administrative staff do not thereby automatically become authorised officials for deciding on building matters. They will carry out activities corresponding to their job classification and qualifications.

Special professional competence examinations will continue to take place in 2027, with all officials having their current qualifications recognised upon transfer. For new employees in a service relationship (from 1 January 2028), the rule is that they must pass the civil service examination.

At the same time, it is assumed that special professional competence examinations will still be taking place at the beginning of 2028, provided that the employee registers towards the end of 2027 so that they are not deprived of their rights and have the opportunity to sit the regular examination date, or a resit date if necessary.

No. The qualification requirements are governed by the Building Act, whereby an official from an authority concerned who does not have the civil service examination or the special professional competence examination required to perform the agenda of a building authority cannot be an authorised official issuing permits for projects.

This employee will be integrated as a specialist in the protected public interest for which they are qualified by their special professional competence examination, and they will continue to ensure this activity within the Office for Spatial Development.

The exact number of employees being transferred will not be determined by a single blanket figure. The basis will be the predominant performance of the agenda that is transferring to the state building administration, and the specific needs of the individual offices.

Part-time positions will be handled in accordance with the general rules on the transfer of labour-law relationships and on the basis of management decisions.

Some areas of expertise will not need to be available separately at every territorial office. If a particular protected public interest needs to be assessed only in a smaller number of cases, the specialist may be assigned, for example, to a regional office, and the territorial offices will draw on that expertise as needed.

The aim is to share capacity more effectively, to ensure expertise, and at the same time not to burden every office with positions that would not be used efficiently at that location.

The amendment is set to take effect in stages. From 1 January 2027, the Building Act as amended will begin to apply, but the authorities concerned will only be integrated within the territory once the regional and territorial offices are established.

In practice, this means that in 2027 the current regime for issuing binding opinions and other opinions will remain in place within the territory. The full organisational change of the territorial building administration will only take effect from 1 January 2028.

The number of positions will not be determined merely by a blanket figure. It will be based on the scope of the agendas being transferred, on the predominant nature of the employees' work, and on the needs of the individual offices.

The specific configuration of capacities will form part of the implementation of the new structure of the state building administration.

In 2027, the authorities concerned in the territory will continue to operate and will issue binding opinions and other opinions under the rules of the transitional period. The full integration of the relevant agendas into the regional and territorial offices will only take place once those offices are established.

Proceedings and procedures that are not completed before the new offices are established and for which the competent authority changes will be taken over and completed by the relevant regional Office for Spatial Development or its territorial office. Until then, the existing competent authorities and the authorities concerned will continue to operate.

It means that spatial planning will be more strongly tied to self-governing responsibility. A municipality or region is to decide how its territory should develop, which needs of residents it should meet and which values it should protect.

Until now, drawing up planning documentation was more tied to delegated powers. The amendment changes this model so that local governments have more direct control over the development of their territory.

The municipality remains a party to the proceedings and can raise objections on matters related to the zoning plan, the development of the territory and the protection of values within its independent powers.

At the same time, the importance of spatial planning is strengthened. The municipality is to set the development concept — that is, what should happen in the territory and where. The state building administration then assesses the specific project expertly, under the law.

No. Local knowledge is preserved through municipal spatial planning and the municipalities' participation in proceedings. Officials are to continue working in the regions, and where it makes sense, branch offices can be set up.

The goal of the change is not to limit the influence of local governments, but to remove the fragmentation of the system and unify decision-making methodology.

The plan is to create the Office for Spatial Development, 14 regional development offices in the regional capitals and the City of Prague, and 205 territorial offices in municipalities with extended powers. Branch offices in further municipalities will be set up as needed.

The aim of the new structure is to unify methodology and decision-making practice, eliminate systemic bias, reduce jurisdictional disputes and enable the sharing of capacity.

The number of authorities alone is no guarantee of a functioning system. Today the system suffers from a shortage of officials, divergent practice, jurisdictional disputes and inconsistent interpretation of the rules.

The new system is meant to enable the sharing of capacity, interchangeability, more stable methodology and more consistent decision-making. What matters is not only that an authority is physically close, but that it decides expertly, predictably and within statutory deadlines.

Branch offices beyond the basic network of territorial offices are to be set up according to the needs of the area. Economic, staffing and capacity efficiency, as well as demand from municipalities, are to be taken into account.

The point is to maintain accessibility where high-quality handling of the agenda can be ensured, not to mechanically keep a structure regardless of staffing and professional capacity.

Yes. It is municipalities that often run into the same barriers as private builders: long proceedings, uncertain outcomes, repeated requests for additions and the inability to complete a project within a subsidy period or an electoral term.

Faster spatial planning, clearer rules and more predictable permitting are meant to help municipalities prepare schools, kindergartens, health and social facilities, affordable housing and transport and technical infrastructure.

The amendment drops some unnecessary formal steps and allows a faster procedure for changes that do not interfere with the concept of the zoning plan. Minor changes in developable areas should be possible within a matter of months.

The goal is that municipalities do not have to go through a lengthy process — which today can take years — for minor corrections, refinements or specific needs.

This is the municipality's option to clarify questions of interpretation or to agree to a minor deviation in cases where no public interests are affected and the affected owners and eligible investors agree.

This could be, for example, a practical refinement in the area that does not change the meaning and purpose of the zoning plan, but makes it possible to reasonably permit a specific project without the need for a lengthy change to the planning documentation.

The amendment strengthens planning contracts and the ability to address, in a predictable way, the impacts of new construction on public infrastructure and the municipal budget.

If new development creates a need for pavements, sewerage, transport, school capacity, greenery or services, it should be possible to address these costs and obligations transparently and on time. The goal is a fair relationship, not ad-hoc bargaining.

The amendment envisages tools that will allow municipalities to respond better to situations where a change to the planning documentation increases the value of land.

The point is for territorial development to bring a fair benefit to the municipality as well, since it has to provide public infrastructure and services for new residents or users of the area.

The aim of the reform is to transfer the performance of the building administration to the state and to end the situation where municipalities subsidise the performance of state administration from their own budgets.

The specific arrangement of financing, compensation and operating costs is part of the implementation preparations. Employment-law questions are to be handled according to standard rules.

The implementation includes a project team and a network of regional coordinators. They are to communicate with local governments in the regions and help resolve specific issues — staffing, organisational and technical.

Municipalities should thus have specific contacts with whom they can resolve their questions directly. The goal is for the transition to the new system to be not just a formal change of law, but a genuinely managed process.

The amendment provides a safety net for municipalities that do not want to, or cannot, draw up a zoning plan on their own. In such a case, the municipality can reach an agreement with another municipality, the region or a qualified provider, or with an association of municipalities (whose status was adjusted precisely to enable this option). A municipality can also ask the regional Office for Spatial Development, which is obliged to draw up the zoning plan for the municipality at its own expense.

The goal is to strengthen local governments, while at the same time not leaving smaller municipalities without professional help.