End of curt appeals in the Construction Law. What does it mean in practice?

The Polish Construction Law has recently (on 7 January 2026) undergone a significant, maybe even revolutionary, change that radically modifies the rules of appealing against decisions and orders issued in the investment proceedings. Newly added Article 10b of the Construction Law puts an end to the era when to lodge an effective appeal it was enough for the party to express dissatisfaction with the decision, for example, by simply saying “I do not agree with the decision”. What are the practical implications of this change?

Exemption from the Code rule

Pursuant to the general rule expressed in Article 128 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the appeal, in general, does not require a detailed justification. It is enough for the justification to express the party’s dissatisfaction with the issued decision. However, the legislator has decided to strengthen these criteria with respect to proceedings on construction matters. As at the beginning of 2026, the party appealing against the decision (for instance, regarding a construction permit) or filing a complaint against the order, is obliged to indicate:

• objections against the issued deed,
• scope of demand (with precisely specifying the party’s requests),
• evidence justifying this demand.

Effects of amendment for Construction Law

Introducing Article 10b to the Construction Law is a visible step toward professionalising the proceedings that brings significant consequences both for authorities and parties themselves. These include:

1. Pain of leaving complaint unprocessed: If the claimant fails to fulfil the new requirements for appeal or complaint, the authority is obliged to apply Article 64(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and call to complete the documents under pain of leaving the letter unexamined. This closes the way to substantive examination of the matter.
2. Discipline for authorities: The new regulation requires the appeal authorities to take prompt action. The call to complete documents must be made within 14 days of receiving the letter at the latest. It should be assumed that the lack of such call results in the necessity to examine the deficient appeal in accordance with its primary content.
3. Barrier for citizens and relief for investors: From the practical perspective, the introduced amendment will limit the plague of vague appeals and complaints filed “just because” or in order to prolong the construction procedures. On the other hand, it raises the game for the ordinary citizen who may struggle with correctly formulating the legal allegations, scope of demand, and evidence without requiring the assistance of a professional representative. This may pose a barrier to protection of one’s own rights.

In disputes, when the authority deems, without justification, that the letter still does not meet the requirements and leaves it without examination, the party may resort to defence on the grounds of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may file to an administrative court a reminder and next, a complaint on authority’s failure to act. This, in turn, may pose a risk of more frequent disputes regarding authority’s failure to act when the procedure of completing documents is incorrectly applied.

The recently introduced Article 10b of the Construction Law is consistent with a currently noticeable tendency to professionalise the administrative procedures in the investment and construction process. This is done by shifting a greater responsibility to the parties and at the same time raising the standard of justifying the settlements on the instance level. This new requirement may, as a consequence, have a positive impact on shortening of the construction procedures.