At the meeting of the presidents of the specialised divisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Courts of Appeal, several legal issues were discussed which led to contradictory solutions in practice. These included the legal nature of the decision of local councils approving the PUD.
On the one hand, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, as well as the Courts of Appeal of Brasov, Constanta, Iasi and Oradea have held that the detailed urban plan (PUD) is a normative administrative act because the intended beneficiaries are not identified, and the act concerns the plot in question. In other words, even if there are several successive owners, all of them will have to comply with the same guidelines set out in the PUD.
On the other hand, the INM format has essentially argued that the PUD can be issued for a specific project (commercial premises, factory, school, etc.), detailing technical aspects related to the investment and is addressed to the person intending to make the investment, therefore it also has a specific beneficiary. In other words, in this case we are talking about an individual administrative act.
Finally, it was decided by a majority that the decision of a local council approving the PUD is an individual administrative act.
This approach has a number of practical consequences. First of all, if one wishes to challenge this act, it will be necessary to go through the preliminary procedure (preliminary complaint). Secondly, there will be a time limit within which such acts may be challenged before the courts (six months or a maximum of one year). Finally, given that there is no unanimity on this issue, it is still possible for some courts to consider that the PUD is a normative administrative act.