A verbal refusal at the counter is not a rejection. That sounds like a nicety and it is not: the code describes rejection as an administrative act with a mandatory content, and the difference between the two only shows when you try to do something with the answer you were given.
The issuing procedure is on the building permit page. Here we look at the other end, where the application does not get through.
Refusal is not the only exit
Article 275 paragraph (1) gives the authority two options, not just refusal. It may reject the issuing of the permit, or it may make issuing conditional on the proposed solution being modified and the permit project redone.
The grounds are listed: the proposed solution does not comply with the approved planning rules, or with the terms of the approvals or the single agreement, or it breaches the code. The enumeration is closed in form, but the third ground refers to the code as a whole, so it is not as narrow as it looks.
The second option is the one that gets lost in discussion. An answer requiring the project to be redone is not a rejection, it is a condition, and the file stays in the procedure. Anyone reading the full text will notice the list of grounds is the same for both exits; what differs is what the authority does with them.
What the act must contain
Paragraph (2) is the part to remember. Where the application is rejected, the authority issues the administrative act of rejection, setting out the reasons in law and in fact that led to it.
Two categories, both mandatory. The reasons in law are the provisions breached. The reasons in fact are what in your project breaches them. An act citing articles without saying which specific element falls short does not satisfy the wording, and an answer describing a dissatisfaction with no legal basis satisfies it even less.
Demolition has an extra ground
Paragraph (3) adds a separate situation: a demolition permit may be refused if the works are such as to compromise the protection or the enhancement of natural and/or cultural heritage.
It is the only ground for refusal in this article that does not rest on planning non-compliance but on a heritage assessment. It matters for anyone demolishing in order to build, because it changes the kind of argument they need to anticipate.
What the duty to give reasons does in practice
From here on this is opinion. I think the part with immediate practical effect is not the right to challenge, but the duty to give reasons in fact. It makes answers comparable between files and between town halls.
An act saying exactly which element breaches which rule can be corrected, and the procedure can be restarted with a modified solution. A general answer cannot be corrected, because there is nothing to correct. The link with transparency shows here: if rejections become public, as covered in what the town hall must publish, their reasons become comparable and local practice becomes visible from outside.
What happens to the file between filing and answer is in what happens after you file, and the approving bodies that can block a solution before this point are in the single agreement committee.
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.