Almost everything written about building stops at acceptance. The report is signed, the technical book handed over, the property registered, and the story looks finished. The code has a whole title about what comes next, and it is not addressed to the builder.
The rule, in four paragraphs
Article 550 describes monitoring behaviour over time as a systematic activity of gathering and using information obtained through observation and measurement, across the building’s entire existence.
Paragraph (3) sets the scope: it applies to all constructions except those classed CC1. Paragraph (4) sets the responsible party: the client, for the period of use. Paragraph (5) divides it into two categories, current monitoring and special monitoring.
Current monitoring, at paragraph (6), is permanent, and its duration coincides with the building’s service life. Special monitoring, at paragraph (10), applies to new constructions in classes CC3 and CC4 and is established by the design, or to buildings in use showing a dangerous evolution.
So the practical question is not whether it concerns you, but which consequence class your building falls into. The classification sits in the design, and what each class means is set out in the consequence class.
The programme already exists, in the design you paid for
Paragraph (8) says current monitoring is carried out according to the monitoring programme, which forms part of the detailed design. And article 407 requires the technical book of the building to contain a section on that programme.
In other words, the document telling you what to do does not have to be invented. It should already be in the file you received at acceptance, alongside the technical book we wrote about in the technical book goes electronic.
What is missing
Article 407 paragraph (2) refers the criteria and the responsibility for producing the programme to a ministerial order. Until that order appears, the obligation has a holder, a scope and a duration, but no standard.
From here on this is opinion, not reading of text
I think this is the least observed obligation in the whole code, and not because people are careless.
Three things compound. The owner of a house does not generally think of themselves as the administrator of a construction; they think of themselves as an owner, which is a legal relationship rather than a technical one. Then, the obligation starts at exactly the moment everyone professionally involved leaves: the designer, the supervisor, the contractor. Nobody is left to mention it exists. And finally, it has no triggering event. A fee has a due date, a permit has a term, and current monitoring has nothing that knocks at the door.
I am not arguing the rule is wrong. For CC3 and CC4 it is plainly necessary, and excluding CC1 shows the legislator weighed the effort. I am predicting only that, for the buildings in the middle, it will be discovered retroactively, on a sale or during an expert report, when someone asks where the programme is and what has been recorded in it over the past five years.
The signal to watch is simple and checkable: whether the order under article 407 paragraph (2) appears, and whether it says anything about CC2. The rest will settle itself, one way or the other. What is handed over at acceptance, and to whom, is described on the completion acceptance page.
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.