There Law No. 2025-1129 of November 26, 2025 The simplification of urban planning and housing law pursues the legislator's objective of accelerating the processing of urban planning permit disputes and the completion of construction projects.
It considerably restricts the possibilities for third parties, mainly neighbors of construction projects, to challenge construction operations.
This reform of urban planning law litigation concerns any decision relating to a planning permission. Thus, the modification of the appeals regime concerns both decisions likely to harm third parties, namely building, development or demolition permits and decisions of no opposition to a prior declaration of works, but also decisions which harm petitioners, that is to say decisions to withdraw an authorization and decisions to refuse an application for authorization.
Neutralizing the appeal process
This reform establishes a special regime of the common law of administrative litigation of the two-month appeal period and of the extension of the period of legal appeal in the event of an informal appeal.
New article L. 600-12-2 of the town planning code:
The deadline for filing an informal or formal appeal against a decision concerning a planning permission is one month. If the administration remains silent for more than two months on this appeal, the competent authority considers it a rejection. The deadline for bringing legal proceedings against a decision mentioned in the first paragraph is not extended by filing an informal or formal appeal.
The time limit for an informal appeal by the petitioner and the injured third party is reduced to one month instead of two.
This period is extremely short, given that the administration also has a period of one month to communicate the documents of a building permit to a person who requests them.
An informal appeal no longer suspends the time limit for legal proceedings..
The amicable approach no longer has any impact on the time limit for bringing the matter before the administrative judge.
The time limit for legal appeals is therefore two months from the date of regular posting of the granted planning permission Or from the date of notification in the event of refusal or objection to the construction project, It does not matter whether an informal appeal has been filed.
The informal appeal loses its main purpose : that of negotiating with the petitioner and/or the administration.
Local authorities will likely see an increase in the number of legal challenges against their decisions and will therefore have to consider whether to withdraw or issue an amended authorization.
Securing appeals against refusals of authorization
Restriction of pattern substitution over time
The reform now requires the administration to detail all the reasons for refusal in the a period of two months from the date of filing a legal appeal against a refusal of planning permission.
Pattern substitution is now limited in time.
Paragraph 2 of the new Article L. 600-2 of the Town Planning Code :
When the administrative judge is seized of an appeal for annulment against a decision governed by this code and refusing the occupation or use of the land or of a request for the annulment or reformation of a judicial decision concerning this decision, the author of the latter may no longer invoke new grounds for refusal after the expiry of a period of two months from the registration of the appeal or the request.
Presumption of emergency
Since the ELAN law, the urgency is presumed to be met for applications for interim suspension (Article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice) directed against building permits: decision of no objection to prior declaration, building permit, development or demolition permit (Article L. 600-3 of the Town Planning Code).
The presumption of urgency is now extended to refusal through the introduction of the new Article L. 600-3-1 of the Town Planning Code.
In the context of the interim injunction proceedings brought against a refusal of planning permission, The condition of urgency is now presumed..
The legislator continues its desire to avoid blocking construction projects by allowing for a rapid judicial opinion on the legality of their project.
