A downloaded model is not wrong in itself. The problem is that every model was written for one particular procedure, and the Codul urbanismului sets four different content frameworks for the piece everyone calls by the same name. In two of them the document does not carry that name at all.
There is something else the file does not show: most of the models in circulation were drafted for Ordinul nr. 839/2009, repealed by article 576 paragraph (3) together with Legea 50/1991. What survived that list and what did not is covered in what the code actually repealed.
First, there is not just one
The question almost always reaches us in the singular, and that is where the confusion starts. Point 1.4.1 of annex 2 splits the architectural project into the memoriu tehnic and the drawings. Point 1.6, for the specific engineering project, says “memoriile tehnice de specialitate”, in the plural, and lists them alongside the calculation summaries, the geotechnical survey and the technical assessment of the effect on neighbouring properties.
The plural is not a drafting slip. Point 1.6.1 describes them as covering different components, structure and resistance on one side, building services on the other, and asks for a description and a justification of the solutions, not merely a list of them. How many there are depends on how many specialisms the project involves. What the architectural report must contain is on the page about memoriu tehnic; here we look at what changes from one procedure to the next.
Four procedures, four contents
| Procedure | What the code calls it | Where it is set out |
|---|---|---|
| Construction | memoriul tehnic | annex 2, point 1.4.2 |
| Rural single-family house, simplified procedure | memoriu-sinteză | annex 3, point 7 |
| Site development | memoriul tehnic | annex 4, point 6 |
| Demolition | memoriu | annex 5, point 1.2 |
Under the simplified rural procedure it has another name
Annex 3 applies to a single-family house in a rural area, with a height regime of at most ground plus attic and a gross built area of at most 150 sqm. Point 6 says the architectural project comprises a memoriu-sinteză and the drawings, and point 7 structures it into chapters of its own. The lettered list from annex 2 appears nowhere.
Annex 3 is also stricter in a place nobody expects: the drawings are produced at 1:50, where annex 2 leaves the scale to the designer and asks only that it be adequate. The thresholds separating the two regimes are covered in the permit project is not the execution project.
Annex 4 looks alike and is missing three items
This is the costliest trap, because the two lists look the same on a quick read. The technical report in annex 4, for the site development permit, has eight items. The one in annex 2 has eleven.
What is absent from annex 4: how culturally significant elements are protected and brought into value, how the project meets the applicable quality requirements, and environmental protection. The item covering technical solutions is also shortened: at point 1.4.2 of annex 2 it explicitly asks how the applicable planning rules are complied with, which annex 4 leaves out.
A report built on the site development pattern looks complete and is missing precisely the items read by whoever checks compliance with the planning rules. That procedure has its own page, the site development permit.
For demolition, the report is a history
Annex 5 asks at point 1.2 for a report that does not describe a proposal but a building that is about to go: a short history with the year it was built and any known craftsmen, a description of the structure, the constituent materials and the architectural style, and a note on the heritage or decorative elements to be salvaged.
It also asks for colour photographs in 9 by 12 cm format, of every façade and of the main rooms, the staircase and the entrance hall. No model written for construction contains anything of the sort. The procedure is on the page about the demolition permit, and the change of name is covered in DTAD has become PAD.
The reports that appear only on certain buildings
On top of all this, article 265 paragraph (2) adds documents that depend on the type of building, and three of them are reports. Item j), for collective residential buildings, requires the checked technical report for the fundamental requirement of hygiene, health and the environment. Item k), for buildings with public access, requires the checked technical report for the fundamental requirement of safety and accessibility in use. Item l), for buildings that need a fire safety permit, requires the technical report on meeting the fire safety requirement, which is then developed into the fire safety scenario.
None of them is solved with a general model, because each is written against one specific fundamental requirement, and the first two must also be checked.
Site works and execution have their own
Article 291 paragraph (5) describes a technical report resembling none of the above: temporary works, procurement of materials, temporary connection to utilities, access and enclosures, occupational safety, waste collection and, where applicable, the felling and replanting plan. It is the written piece of the permit for setting up the construction site, a separate file with its own timing.
Article 508 paragraph (2) then lists the written pieces of the technical execution project, where an architectural report and specialist reports appear again, more developed, accompanied by calculation notes and specifications. Anyone asking for “a technical report model” without saying which stage may correctly be handed any of them.
Whoever reads it is looking for compliance
Article 442 paragraph (4) item b) lists the technical report among the mandatory elements of level 2 checking, described there as the technical report on the project’s compliance with the legal provisions in force. Level 2 checking applies to buildings in consequence class CC2 and is carried out by certified technical checkers who did not take part in drafting the project. When checking is mandatory is covered in when a project checker is actually required.
That changes the practical question. A technical report is not written to match how complete the model it started from looks, but to match the procedure, the annex and the stage that model came from, because that is exactly where the reader will look.
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.