The legislative amendments required to the New Building Code (NOK), specifically regarding increases in building density and height allowances, among other matters, are defined in four rulings published today by the Plenary of the Council of State. These rulings declared the NOK’s incentive system unconstitutional, while also clarifying what can no longer be constructed under these provisions.

Simultaneously, the CoS judges clarified through their rulings which building permits are unaffected by the NOK’s unconstitutionality, at which exact stage construction is “frozen,” and under what specific conditions construction activities may proceed.

Unconstitutionality Does Not Apply to Permits with Construction Begun by December 11, 2024

According to the Plenary rulings of the CoS (146, 147, 148, 149/2025), presided over by Michalis Pikramenos and authored by State Councillors Maria Sotiropoulou and Christiana Bolofi, the consequences of unconstitutionality should not affect building permits for which construction work (building activities) has demonstrably begun by December 11, 2024. This date coincides with the Court’s announcement of the content of these rulings by the President.

The judges emphasized that “commencement of building permits” refers to excavation work for the building’s construction, and the timing of such work must be proven by any suitable means, including but not limited to:

a) Notification of excavation commencement, by any means, to any administrative authority, and
b) Electronic submission of the Analytical Periodic Statement (APD) by the employer to the EFKA database, provided such notification or submission occurs by December 11, 2024.

In other words, “automatic electronic issuance of a building permit, receipt of a permit number, or electronic updates to other services, which only document the issuance of the permit, are insufficient to prove the start of construction activities.” Additionally, “pending lawsuits as of December 11, 2024, are not exempt from the limitations resulting from the ruling on unconstitutionality.”

On Incentives for Building Density and Height

Initially, the Plenary ruled that “the system of provisions in the NOK (articles 10(1), 15(8), 19(2), and 25(1)), which provide for increases in the building coefficient and height as incentives for constructing buildings, does not inherently contradict Article 24(2) of the Constitution.”

This is because:
a) The construction enabled by the building coefficient increase does not appear excessively disproportionate to the point of leading to a constitutionally impermissible degradation of living conditions and the environment. Additionally, the height stipulation does not, by itself, constitute an adverse alteration of conditions.
b) The incentives are accompanied by offsets such as reduced coverage, the creation of energy-efficient buildings, and the expansion of public and green spaces, which are considered, based on common experience, environmentally beneficial elements.

However, the judges noted, “the NOK incentives, due to their predominant urban-planning nature, cannot be implemented directly through building permits issued under the NOK. Instead, it is the responsibility of urban planners to incorporate them into local planning.”

Local planning must evaluate the consequences for the residential environment of the area where the incentives are applied, substantiating these conclusions through specialized scientific studies prepared during the design approval process and taking into account the character of each settlement.

As a result, the NOK incentive system contravenes Articles 24(1) and 24(2) of the Constitution. This is not primarily due to the content of the disputed provisions, which, as noted above, are not themselves unconstitutional, but because the provisions grant building authorities direct authority to issue permits that deviate from the applicable urban-planning regulations of each area.

What Counts Toward the Building Coefficient

The court also determined that “the regulations of Article 11(6) of the NOK regarding whether various spaces within buildings count toward the building coefficient are appropriately established across the board under the Building Code, as they are not matters related to local urban-planning design.”

However, the exclusion of mezzanines and up to 35-square-meter structures on rooftops from the building coefficient, as well as the treatment of swimming pools as planted surfaces, are unconstitutional. These elements must, therefore, be counted toward the building coefficient. Conversely, excluding bay windows (architectural elements of limited dimensions) and non-residential staircases from the building coefficient is constitutional.

Balancing Public Interest and Legal Certainty

The CoS weighed the public interest against the principles of legal certainty, predictability, and the trust of individuals who constructed buildings in good faith, relying on the legislative framework and incentives provided by Law 4067/2012. The Court emphasized that the unconstitutionality aligns with its established jurisprudence, which the legislator failed to consider when drafting the NOK (Law 4067/2012) to uphold the principle of legal certainty. This principle is served when the jurisprudence of supreme courts is taken into account during legislative processes.

The four cases were heard by the Plenary of the CoS on October 11, 2024, following a referral from its Fifth Chamber. They pertained to building permits issued in the Municipality of Alimos under the NOK provisions.

Questions and Answers

What Was Decided in the CoS’s 146-149/2025 Rulings?

It was decided that the NOK provisions introducing building incentives (building coefficient, height) could be incorporated into the urban-planning design of specific areas based on their unique characteristics but cannot be constitutionally established as general provisions. Doing so would disrupt the prevailing urban-planning framework of each area.

Is This the First CoS Ruling on This Issue?

The current rulings address the relationship between general building regulations and the specific planning requirements of each area. Similar issues have been raised in the past, with the Court consistently ruling that specific planning requirements of each area take precedence, particularly when they are environmentally favorable. This principle was also upheld in the Plenary’s 705/2020 ruling regarding the existing NOK provisions.

Why Did It Take So Long to Rule on the NOK’s Constitutionality? The NOK Has Been in Force Since 2012.

The economic crisis initially caused a decline in construction activity and a reduction in building permit issuance, delaying relevant litigation. The permits leading to today’s rulings were issued in 2022, a decade after the NOK took effect. The Fifth Chamber’s referral rulings were published in 2024, and the cases were heard by the Plenary in October 2024, with the rulings published in December of the same year.

Are There Pending CoS Cases on the Constitutionality of Other NOK Incentives?

Yes. Other cases regarding building permits involving different NOK provisions (e.g., underground construction or expanded underground garages) are still pending.

Whom Do the Plenary’s Rulings Bind?

Formally, only the litigants in these specific cases. However, because the permits’ illegality stems from the law’s unconstitutionality, these rulings may affect the legality of all permits issued under the invalidated provisions. For this reason, the rulings explicitly limit the effects of unconstitutionality, ensuring that permits for which construction has begun—or, more so, has been completed—cannot be revoked. However, permits already challenged in court by December 11, 2024, may still be annulled for this reason, even if construction has begun, to uphold the right to judicial protection.

Are Permits With Unstarted Construction at Risk?

Permits for which construction has not begun may be annulled for the reasons outlined in the rulings. Those with ongoing construction are not at risk due to the NOK’s unconstitutional incentives but may still be invalidated if other issues arise.

What Qualifies as Starting Construction? How Is It Proven?

Starting construction refers to excavation work for a building’s construction. This must be proven through appropriate means, including:

• Notification of excavation commencement to any administrative authority, or
• Electronic submission of an Analytical Periodic Statement (APD) by the employer to the EFKA database by December 11, 2024.

Simply issuing a permit electronically or obtaining a permit number is insufficient to prove construction commencement.

Can I Claim Compensation If My Permit Is Annulled?

If damages arise from a law’s unconstitutionality, there is a general right to compensation, provided all other conditions for state liability are met. The right to compensation is assessed on a case-by-case basis by the competent administrative courts.

Did the CoS Consider the Impact of These Rulings on Investments and Transaction Security?

Yes. The Court applied legislation allowing it to consider the consequences of its unconstitutionality rulings and, in this instance, exhausted the legal framework’s possibilities to minimize potential harm to economic activity and transaction security.