Stopping the works is discussed publicly as though it were a larger fine. It is not. Article 353 describes it as a measure with effects of its own, and the most expensive of those are not paid at a cashier’s desk.
The fines themselves and the administrative procedure are on the penalties page. This looks at the measure itself.
Who may order it, and on what grounds
Paragraph (2) gives the power to the State Inspectorate for Construction or to the competent control body of the local authority. There are four grounds: works without a permit, works in breach of the permit, works based on permits issued unlawfully and established as such by final court judgments, and breach of the other procedures laid down by the code.
The third ground is worth reading twice. You may hold a permit you did not obtain improperly and still be stopped, if a court has finally established that the act was unlawfully issued. On what happens to a building already standing in that case, see the permit annulled and the house already built.
The measure carries costs, not just a prohibition
Paragraph (3): together with the stop, conservation measures for the works already carried out are ordered, by trade, at the developer’s expense. A stopped site is not a site sitting idle. It is a site that has to be made safe, on your money, while producing nothing.
Paragraph (6) lists what else may be ordered at the same time, alongside the administrative penalty:
- a ban on anyone entering the site, apart from those with control duties, until the permit is issued; if removal of the works was also ordered, access is allowed, but only for the limited purpose of removing them;
- the application of seals or other distinctive marks having the value of a seal, but only where entry to the site has already been prohibited;
- disconnection from the site utilities, notified to the network operators by a letter from the body that ordered it.
The link between the first two is a condition, not a formality: the seal is applied to prevent unauthorised access, in the case where access has been prohibited.
Breaking the seal is not an administrative offence
Paragraph (7) refers the breaking of lawfully applied seals or distinctive marks to article 260 of the Criminal Code. And if the stop order is not observed, paragraph (11) requires the control body to notify the prosecuting authorities without delay of the offence at article 356 paragraph (1) letter b). We wrote about the criminal threshold in where criminal liability begins.
Meanwhile paragraph (8) requires the body that ordered the stop to carry out frequent, unannounced checks, precisely in order to establish whether the measure is being observed.
The route of challenge exists, and is named
Paragraph (10) says the measures ordered by the decision may be challenged by the interested person under Law no. 554/2004, the administrative litigation act. The written decision imposing additional measures is enforceable from the date it is communicated, which means it applies while you are challenging it.
One reading note, not a point of law: paragraph (10) refers to the decision issued “in accordance with paragraph (4)”, yet paragraph (4) governs the notification of other authorities, while the written decision appears at paragraph (9). The reference appears to be to paragraph (9). This is the kind of detail settled by practice or by a corrigendum, not by careful reading.
What to do in the first few days
Ask for the decision in writing and for the date of communication, because everything runs from there. Check whether the ground invoked is one of the four in paragraph (2). Treat conservation as an immediate obligation, separate from the merits of the dispute. And do not touch the seal, however convinced you are that the measure is wrong: that is the one item on the whole list that takes you out of administrative law.
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.