Rejection of Prior Communication in Portugal: How to Challenge Unfavourable Decisions

Prior communication represents one of the fundamental pillars of the Portuguese urban planning system, allowing individuals to carry out specific urban operations without the need to wait for a formal licence. This procedure, regulated by the Legal Framework for Urbanisation and Building (RJUE), aims to accelerate straightforward administrative processes, provided all legal requirements are fulfilled. However, not all prior communications are accepted. When rejected, applicants have specific legal mechanisms to contest such decisions, thereby safeguarding their rights and legitimate interests.

"Prior communication is not merely a simplified procedure—it is a fundamental right of the individual that must be protected through appropriate administrative appeal mechanisms."

Legal foundations for the rejection of prior communication

Article 36 of the RJUE – Revoked Provision

The Article 36 of the RJUE, which previously governed the “Rejection of prior communication”, was repealed by Decree‑Law No. 136/2014. This repeal significantly changed the legal framework, transferring the rules for contestation to other provisions within the same law.

Current Regime of Successive Supervision

Today, Article 35(8) of the RJUE stipulates that the municipal council must, under successive supervision, block any urban operation submitted through prior communication and take measures to restore legal compliance whenever:

• Legal or regulatory conditions are not met.

• Mandatory opinions from external entities were not obtained.

• The operations fail to comply with binding external opinions.

Expiry Period for Supervision

The municipality’s supervisory duty expires  10 years after the issuance of the prior communication title, defining an important temporal limit for municipal action.

Legal grounds for rejection

Common causes include:

• Breach of municipal or inter‑municipal spatial planning instruments.

• Failure to comply with construction standards.

• Violation of administrative easements or public utility restrictions.

• Omission of legally mandatory external consultations.

Procedural issues:

According to Article 11  of the  RJUE, a prior communication can be summarily rejected when:

• The request clearly contravenes applicable laws or regulations.

• Essential supporting documents are missing.

• The operation is exempt from prior control.

Available mechanisms for appeal

Administrative Appeal – Article 114  of  the  RJUE

A decision must be issued within 30 days.

• If no response occurs, the appeal is tacitly approved.

• It may be lodged against any act or opinion issued under the RJUE.

Features:

• Nature: Addressed to the same authority that issued the decision.

• Suspensive effect: Not automatic unless specifically granted by law.

• Deadline: Governed by the Administrative Procedure Code (CPA).

Special Administrative Action – Article 115 of the RJUE

For certain cases specified in Article 106  of  the  RJUE, such as demolition or restoration orders:

• The action has automatic suspensive effect.

• Authorities must immediately halt enforcement.

• Proceedings take place before administrative and tax courts.

Practical procedure for contestation

Phase 1 – Analyse the decision

• Identify specific reasons for rejection stated by the municipality.

• Verify procedural compliance and deadlines.

• Assess legal reasoning and supporting evidence.

Phase 2 – Select the appropriate mechanism

Choice depends on:

• Type of administrative act.

• Urgency (need for suspensive effect).

• Legal complexity.

• Strategic preference for seeking resolution at administrative level first.

Phase 3 – Preparation and evidence

Collect:

• Complete administrative file.

• Technical documents proving regulatory compliance.

• Expert opinions (architectural, legal, environmental).

• Legal reasoning identifying flaws in the administrative act.

Courts and procedures

Administrative and Tax Jurisdiction

These courts are competent for urban planning disputes involving:

• Appeals against administrative acts.

• Urban infractions.

• Compliance and restoration measures.

Territorial competence:

Generally, the Administrative and Tax Court for the municipality’s district.

Procedural deadlines:

As defined by the Code of Administrative Courts Procedure (CPTA):

• 2 months for general administrative appeals.

• 1 month for special actions related to urban planning.

• Counting starts from the notification date.

  
  

Practical recommendations for an effective challenge

Technical preparation

• Consult qualified professionals (architects, engineers, administrative law specialists).

• Gather all relevant technical reports and compliance certificates.

Strategic approach

• Evaluate strength of the legal argument, cost–benefit, expected timeline, and alternatives.

• Where possible, negotiate with the municipality by clarifying issues or adjusting the project.

Process follow‑up

• Monitor deadlines closely.

• Respond promptly to requests for clarification.

• Maintain communication with municipal technicians.

• Keep detailed records of all actions taken.

Special and exceptional cases

• With external opinions: Appeals may challenge the external entities’ opinions or dispute whether consultation was legally required.

• Sensitive areas: Projects in protected zones require additional consultations (e.g. DGPC, ICNF) and environmental or heritage studies.

• Urgent situations: Parties may request injunctions when public safety or health risks justify immediate intervention.

Recent legislative changes

Impact of  Decree‑Law No. 10/2024

Key updates include:

• Transitional provisions for pending cases.

• Continuity of tacit approval rules for prior procedures.

• Clarification of competences and deadlines.

Electronic Platform for Urban Procedures (PEPU)

From  2026, electronic submission becomes mandatory, entailing:

• Digital adaptation of appeal and complaint procedures.

• Interoperability with other public systems.

• Greater automation of procedural steps.

Key takeaway

Challenging unfavourable prior‑communication decisions is a fundamental right in Portuguese urban law. The system provides multiple safeguarding mechanisms — from administrative appeals to judicial actions. Effectiveness depends on sound technical preparation, detailed knowledge of current legislation, and a careful procedural strategy.

Recent legal reforms, including repeal of Article 36  of  the  RJUE and the introduction of digital procedures, demand ongoing professional adaptation. Given the growing complexity and technical nature of urban law, the assistance of qualified architects, engineers, and legal experts is often decisive for a successful challenge.