What is a building permit?
A building permit is an individual administrative act allowing the execution of construction works on a plot or parcel of land. It certifies that the works described in the studies of the file comply with town-planning and building regulations.
It is required for the execution of any construction work that does not fall within small-scale building works or those of Article 30, and it concerns in particular: a) erection, addition and repair of buildings; b) demolition of structures, except for the cases of paragraph 3; c) excavations or embankments, surfacings, formation of plots and parcels for the purpose of construction; d) construction of swimming pools; e) change of use, where this entails an unfavourable change with respect to passage from other floors or common areas.
But what happens in cases where the permit is revoked by the Administration for any reason — that is, where the Administration, by another act, in effect withdraws the building permit?
What does revocation of a building permit mean?
A granted building permit may be revoked only if it is established that it is unlawful or another, specifically provided ground for revocation exists. The Administration may revoke the permit even where the dispute as to the accuracy of the data is raised after its issuance, and the revocation must take place within a reasonable time.
If that period has lapsed, the situation is assessed in accordance with the public interest and the protection of the good-faith citizen.
What may be the grounds for revocation?
1. A granted building permit may be revoked only if it is established that it is unlawful or a specifically provided ground for revocation exists. The act of revocation must be based on specific reasoning that identifies, in a concrete and clear manner, the legal defect attributed to the revoked permit or the ground that allows revocation.
2. A building permit is unlawful and revocable also when its issuance was based on data invoked or submitted by the applicant which subsequently prove to be objectively inaccurate, the consequence of such inaccuracy being that the permit was issued on the basis of provisions on which its issuance could not lawfully be founded had the inaccuracy not existed (Council of State (StE) 1224/2014).
3. It is also revoked when the Administration suspends the construction works and specifically establishes a ground for revocation.
4. A defect justifying revocation of a permit for the erection of a building or other construction must concern the permit itself and not its execution, given that any excesses during the execution of the permit have, indeed, the adverse consequences provided for by law (characterisation of constructions as unauthorised, demolitions, etc.), but cannot establish a ground for revocation of the permit.
5. Under general legislation, a building permit is revoked within 5 years of its issuance (reasonable time). Nevertheless, revocation is permissible without any time limit when, in the specifically reasoned judgment of the competent Authority, grounds of public interest exist or the issuance of the unlawful act was caused by fraudulent conduct on the part of the citizen (StE 1987/83, 2341/87, 2429/92, etc.).
What is the legal approach to the revocation of a building permit?
A direct petition to the Court of Appeals is not advisable, unless the aim is to delay the consequences of the revocation by relying on the case not yet being final. Even in that case, particularly as regards the tax authority, the Town Planning Authority is not bound by the pending petition to refrain from serving the monetary lists for the unauthorised-construction fine.
On the contrary, you should immediately petition SYPOTHA against the revocation decision and place your evidence before it. A favourable decision from this body will mean the end of your ordeal or at least the beginning of the end, if the opposing party persists in pursuing annulment actions against you.
Examples of revocation of a building permit
By judgment No. 949/2016 of the 5th Section of the Council of State (StE), the lawfulness of the revocation of building permits concerning real properties in Xylokastro, Corinth, was assessed.
It was specifically held that, from the provisions of Law 1337/1983, as well as from all the provisions of that law on unauthorised constructions, it follows that these provisions do not abolish, but on the contrary preserve, the rule of demolition of unauthorised constructions, while most exceptions from demolition, for which the above provisions establish certain criteria, constitute exceptions to that general rule (see, indicatively, StE 2245/2013, 877/2009, 3632/1999).
Furthermore, it was held that the principle of legality requires the Administration to revoke any unlawful administrative act, while the principle of protection of legitimate expectations requires the preservation of the validity of acts favourable to the citizen, such as building permits. Revocation of a lawful administrative act and, in particular, of a building permit, is permissible only within a reasonable time from its issuance, only on grounds of legality, and not on the basis of a different assessment of the same factual circumstances (StE 3578/2014, 2815/1990).
Exceptionally, a building permit may be revoked on the ground that the same factual circumstances are now assessed differently, provided that grounds of public interest exist, such as the protection of the environment (StE 3578/2014, 1712/2002).
Finally, it was accepted that the lawfulness of the revocation of the building permit is judged by the court before which it is challenged on the basis of the reasons for revocation contained therein, which may, in principle, be supplemented by the contents of the file, without however allowing that court to substitute the unlawful reasoning with another reasoning not invoked by the issuing authority but formulated by the litigating administrative authority through its observations and the memoranda submitted to the court, claiming that this reasoning may provide a lawful basis for the contested act of revocation (StE 3578/2014, 2245/2013, 4069/2012).
The legislator does not provide a definition of a defective building permit. Nevertheless, and despite the risk of omitting some critical element from the relevant definition, it can be said in broad terms that defective is that building permit which has been issued in violation of the provisions which determine the bodies, the manner of its issuance, the procedure, the supporting documents, as well as the formal and substantive content of the reports, diagrams and studies thereof. The critical element of the definition is the relevant legislative and regulatory provisions which govern all of the above, namely the manner and procedure of issuance, as well as the elements and content of the studies. The term “defects of building permits” therefore refers to the legal defects of the permits.
Compliance with the right of prior hearing is not required when the revocation is made for objective reasons, such as, for example, when the permit for waste disposal is revoked due to exceeding the limits set for the specific business (StE 3567/97), or when a building permit is revoked due to exceeding the plot coverage ratio or because the property being erected is located in a protection zone where new construction is prohibited (StE 900/98), or, finally, when the revocation of an operating licence for a children’s camp is due to a breach of one of its conditions (StE 3149/98).
The matter is different, however, when the Administration revokes an act after a long period of time has passed (e.g. 4 years), thereby altering a situation that had been consolidated with its tolerance. In that case, it must observe the right of prior hearing (StE 5351/87).
When the Administration revokes a building permit as unlawful, the legal defect attributed to it must be defined in a clear and specific manner (StE 2389/2000, 3325/1999, 5003/1998); however, it is not precluded from revoking the building permit as unlawful where a request for its review is pending (StE 3536/2001).
Lack of ownership over the real property constitutes, in principle, a ground justifying revocation of the building permit; in cases where, after its issuance, doubts arise as to the ownership, extent or boundaries of the real property to which the building permit relates, or, generally, as to the existence of real rights over that property which affect its development, the Administration is required, before revoking the said building permit, to issue a specifically reasoned incidental ruling on the disputed issue of ownership, subject, of course, to the final ruling of the civil courts (StE 157/2003, 1555/1997).
Finally, the indefinite cessation of construction works constitutes a revocation of the building permit; however, the subsequent issuance of an act for the continuation of construction works is equivalent to the revocation of the act of revocation and has the consequence of restoring the building permit in force. Consequently, the act of continuation of construction works has an enforceable character and, when it does not modify the terms of erection of the building, it may admissibly be challenged together with the building permit, subject to the proviso that the applicant has not lost the deadline for challenging the building permit by way of annulment up until the issuance of the act of cessation of construction works, which also interrupts any time limit that may have already started running for filing the application for annulment (StE 4955/1998).
- See also article Administrative Law Lawyer
- See also article Contribution in Land and Money
- See also article Lawyer for Application for Annulment
- See also article Lawyer for Civil Liability of the State
- See also article Lawyer for Petition to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
- See also article SYPOTHA – Unauthorised Constructions
- See also article Fines for Unauthorised Constructions – SYPOTHA – Administrative Court of Appeals
- See also article Annulment by the Council of State of a SYPOTHA Decision
- See also article Administrative Appeal
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON REVOCATION OF A BUILDING PERMIT
1. What does revocation of a building permit mean in practice for the owner?
The revocation of a building permit by the Administration means that the permit ceases to be valid retroactively, with the result that works already executed or in progress are deemed unauthorised. The consequences are serious: cessation of works, characterisation of constructions as unauthorised, imposition of fines for erection and retention, and even an order for demolition.
At the same time, the Town Planning Authority informs the tax authority and monetary lists are served. The owner who has invested significant capital in the project is faced with a complete reversal of his investment plan and must immediately respond legally in order to protect his property.
2. When may the Administration lawfully revoke the permit?
Revocation is permissible mainly when the permit is unlawful, that is, has been issued in breach of town-planning provisions, or when it was based on inaccurate data submitted by the applicant. As a rule, revocation must take place within a reasonable time, which case-law sets at five years from issuance.
After the five-year period, revocation is permissible only on compelling grounds of public interest (e.g. environmental protection) or where the permit was issued through fraudulent conduct of the owner. Importantly, any irregularities during the execution of the construction do not justify revocation of the permit itself — they are addressed under the provisions on unauthorised constructions.
3. What is the correct procedure for challenging the revocation?
The correct strategy is to immediately file an administrative appeal before SYPOTHA (Council for Town-Planning Matters and Disputes) within 30 days of service of the act of revocation. SYPOTHA is an Administrative Committee with judicial function, which sets a hearing date and issues a decision after oral hearing. Upon filing of the objection, fines are automatically suspended until the decision is issued — this is a significant practical benefit.
If the SYPOTHA decision is unfavourable, an application for annulment before the Administrative Court of Appeals follows within 60 days and, if necessary, further legal remedies before the Council of State. A direct petition to the Court of Appeals without first exhausting the administrative-appeal procedure before SYPOTHA is generally inadmissible.
4. How long does the procedure for annulment of the revocation take?
The hearing date before SYPOTHA is, as a rule, set several months after the filing of the objection, while the issuance of the decision follows the hearing. Overall, up to 6 to 12 months may elapse before the final SYPOTHA decision, depending on the committee’s workload.
If the case reaches the Administrative Court of Appeals, the time increases significantly (often 2–3 years), while a possible petition to the Council of State adds further time. Throughout this period, the suspension of fines created by the pending litigation is critical for the owner.
5. What chances of success are there in challenging the revocation?
The chances depend on the soundness of the reasoning of the act of revocation. Case-law requires specific and concrete reasoning identifying the precise legal defect of the permit. Where the reasoning is vague, is based on a different assessment of the same factual circumstances without a ground of public interest, or where the five-year period has elapsed, the chances of annulment increase substantially.
A strong argument is also breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, particularly where the owner acted in good faith and has already invested significant amounts. Each case, however, is judged on the basis of its particular facts.
6. What is the role of the lawyer in a permit revocation case?
The lawyer analyses the act of revocation and the Town Planning Authority’s file in order to identify formal and substantive defects in the reasoning, examines whether the right of prior hearing was observed (where required), assesses whether the revocation took place within a reasonable time and shapes the overall defence strategy. He works closely with an engineer for technical documentation.
He then drafts and files the petition before SYPOTHA, represents the owner at the hearing and — if necessary — files the application for annulment before the Administrative Court of Appeals and the further legal remedies before the Council of State (StE). Timely engagement of a specialised lawyer is decisive, given the strict deadlines.