The Legal Framework for Territorial Management Instruments (RJIGT, also known as the “Land Law”), enshrined in Decree-Law No. 80/2015 of May 14, introduced significant changes to the rules regarding the classification and qualification of land, notably the elimination of developable areas or planned urbanization areas.
It is well known that land use regulations are enshrined in intermunicipal and municipal plans, particularly Municipal Master Plans (PDMs), which required that such plans be updated in accordance with the land classification and qualification rules established by the “Land Law.” The administration was given a five-year period from the date the decree came into force to carry out this update.
As a consequence of the Administration’s inaction, it was established that the rules contained in the plans which should have been amended would be considered suspended — a circumstance that had no practical application.
Thus, the legislator chose to penalize individuals for the Administration’s inaction by suspending rules that had not been amended, through no fault of those individuals, thereby preventing the execution of operations involving the occupation, use, and transformation of land.
Given that a significant number — the majority, one could say — of municipalities did not proceed with such changes in a timely manner, a revision was carried out in 2021 regarding the consequences of the Administration’s inaction. This revision included the possibility of suspending the right to apply for national and EU financial support, except for health, education, housing, or social support projects.
It is clear that the deadline for municipalities to amend their plans, namely the PDMs, was repeatedly extended and, as a result, there were no actual sanctions for failing to comply — and the inadequacy of the rules in the plans largely persisted.
In December 2024, the much-discussed possibility of building on rural land emerged, and with it, the "punishment" for failing to update the plans was once again altered — something that went unnoticed by the less attentive.
The legislator decided — perhaps driven by the need to access EU funding — that the sanction for the Administration’s inaction should be the automatic suspension of rules relating to developable or planned urbanization areas, preventing, under penalty of nullity, the carrying out of any acts or operations involving the occupation, use, or transformation of land.
Without delving into the impacts of such a measure, particularly on housing — considering the well-known housing crisis — it is easy to understand that several urban development procedures were suspended or rejected based on the aforementioned consequence.
Therefore, individuals were prevented from carrying out the urban development operations they intended, due to the Administration’s inaction for ten years in updating the plans in force.
Recognizing that this measure significantly clashed with the pro-construction policy pursued by recent governments (often at the expense of rehabilitation policies, which should have been strengthened — especially regarding state-owned properties, though we’ll leave that for another discussion), a new amendment to the “Land Law” was introduced.
Just over three months after the previous amendment, the legislator stipulated that suspension would no longer be automatic, now requiring a formal decree from the territorially competent Regional Coordination and Development Commission (CCDR), after hearing the respective municipality. The amendment also expanded the range of situations in which suspension might not be applied and, where it was applied, when it could be lifted.
We are now left to wait and see whether the CCDR will issue the suspensions or if we will continue simply waiting for the PDMs to be updated in line with the rules approved and published in 2015.
