One of the Codul urbanismului’s promises is uniformity. It is half true, and the other half is written into the code as well, explicitly. The general framework is on the Legea 169/2026 page.
The useful question is where the line between the two runs, and what you do with it.
The line, briefly
The same everywhere: the deadlines, articles 257 paragraph (4), 273 paragraph (1), 269 paragraph (9) and 271 paragraph (1); the list of avize, drawn up by the ministry and approved by order, article 257 paragraph (5); and the ban on demanding avize “care nu au temei legal și tehnic în raport cu obiectul lucrărilor de construire”, with no legal and technical basis in the works at hand, article 266 paragraph (4).
Left local: whether a comisia de acord unic exists at all, mandatory only at county level, in municipalities and in the Bucharest sectors, article 305 paragraphs (1) and (2); how it works, through each authority’s own rules and protocols, article 307 paragraphs (1) and (3); three optional charges, articles 273 paragraph (2), 308 paragraph (3) and 576 paragraph (4); and whether the primărie runs its own digital platform, article 137 paragraph (2).
The ban in 266 paragraph (4) is the underrated part
Our judgement starts here.
Of all the uniformity in the code, this is the only piece with an immediate effect on an actual file. The rest are deadlines, and a deadline is either met or not. A ban on demanding an aviz with no basis is different: it is a substantive limit on local discretion, and one you can invoke yourself, in writing, at filing.
In practice it turns a negotiation into a question with a checkable answer. No longer “this is what we ask for here”, but “what is the legal and technical basis for this aviz, in relation to my works”. That is a shift in where the burden sits, and we think its value will only show once the first applicants use it as such.
Why we think the differences widen before they narrow
The code sets two organising deadlines and both are short: 45 working days for the commissions, article 576 paragraphs (1) and (2), and 120 days for approving bodies to update their procedures, article 583 paragraph (4).
A short deadline applied unevenly produces, predictably, uneven results. Primării with a settled specialist department will have their rules written on time. Those without will end up at the county agreement in article 305 paragraph (3), which is the correct solution on the text, but adds an actor and a signature to a chain that has just been shortened.
And article 306 letter e) describes the interval openly: until the single window is operational, authorities work “fie prin platforme digitale proprii, fie prin intermediul poștei electronice de la secretariatul propriu”, through their own platforms or by email from their own secretariat. This is not a gap of a few weeks. It is, through article 139 paragraph (8), the regime for years, which we wrote about in the piece on the single window.
The period in which every primărie writes its own procedure is exactly the period in which local practice sets. What settles now will still be asked for in five years, whatever the national platform says.
The four questions that change your calendar
This is the useful part, in our view. The questions to ask at the primărie are no longer about which documents they want. The documents are the same everywhere now. The questions are about organisation.
Is there a comisia de acord unic here, or does it run through an agreement with the county. If it is the agreement, your file crosses two institutions rather than one.
Are the rules approved, and under which protocols. Published rules tell you the commission’s membership, so who has to be persuaded, so what is likely to be slow.
Is there a special fee for urgency and for the acord unic. Both are optional, so their existence cannot be inferred, only checked.
Do they work on their own platform or by email. That difference decides whether you have a record of filing or a sent message.
Four questions, all publicly answerable, none of them about the contents of your file. We wrote about the resulting deadlines in the order of steps, and about what was repealed in the inventory of repeals.
The public indicator to watch
How many primării have actually published their comisia de acord unic rules by the end of 2026. It is the best public indicator of how fast the organisational half of the code is being applied, and the only one anyone can check without filing a file of their own. One local difference does have an explanation written into the code rather than into goodwill: who issues the building permit. And what every town hall must publish regardless is in the public list of permits.
This article is analysis, not legal advice. The provisions cited are from Legea 169/2026, published in Monitorul Oficial no. 661 of 10 August 2026. Check your own situation with the issuing authority.