{"id":5327,"date":"2026-02-01T18:40:57","date_gmt":"2026-02-01T16:40:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/?p=5327"},"modified":"2026-02-01T18:41:02","modified_gmt":"2026-02-01T16:41:02","slug":"when-is-a-neighbors-refusal-unjustified-analysis-of-a-cluj-tribunal-decision-on-judicial-substitution-of-consent-for-change-of-property-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/when-is-a-neighbors-refusal-unjustified-analysis-of-a-cluj-tribunal-decision-on-judicial-substitution-of-consent-for-change-of-property-use\/","title":{"rendered":"Unjustified Refusal of Neighbors to Give Their Consent for Changing the Use of a Property \u2014 Analysis by the Cluj Tribunal"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-factual-context-and-object-of-the-dispute\"><strong>Factual Context and Object of the Dispute<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The dispute analyzed by the <em>Cluj Tribunal<\/em> involved the judicial supplementation of neighbors\u2019 consent for the change of use of an apartment located on the ground floor of a building in the <strong>central and historic area of Cluj-Napoca<\/strong>, from a <strong>commercial space<\/strong> to a <strong>tertiary-use space<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The claimant, owner of the apartment, asked the court to establish the <strong>unjustified nature of the neighbors\u2019 refusal<\/strong> and to issue a judgment to stand in lieu of an authentic consent, since their opposition blocked the administrative procedure for changing the property\u2019s designated use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The first-instance court granted the claim, and the solution was upheld on appeal: the <em>Tribunal<\/em> rejected the neighbors\u2019 criticisms and confirmed that the refusal was unjustified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-facts-as-found-by-the-court\"><strong>Facts as Found by the Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-particularities-of-the-property-and-the-area\"><strong>Particularities of the Property and the Area<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court found that the claimant\u2019s apartment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>was located on the ground floor of the building,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>had approximately <strong>53 sqm<\/strong> of usable area,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>was situated in a <strong>central, historic zone with mixed residential and service uses<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>A key factual element was the existence of <strong>other tertiary-use spaces nearby<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>within the same building (e.g., a restaurant),<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>in buildings across the street,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>and the presence of an intense pedestrian and commercial circulation typical for the area.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The court noted that the zone does <strong>not have a predominantly residential character<\/strong>, meaning the neighbors cannot claim a level of tranquility exclusive to purely residential neighborhoods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-relevant-legal-provisions\"><strong>Relevant Legal Provisions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-art-40-para-5-and-6-of-law-no-196-2018\"><strong>Art. 40 para. (5) and (6) of Law No. 196\/2018<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><strong>\u201c(5)<\/strong> The neighbors\u2019 consent is valid only in an authentic form.<br><strong>(6)<\/strong> An unjustified refusal to give consent shall be established by the competent court, and its judgment shall be accepted by the issuer of the building\/demolition permit in place of the neighbors\u2019 consent.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-art-15-of-the-civil-code\"><strong>Art. 15 of the Civil Code<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cNo right may be exercised for the purpose of harming or injuring another, or in an excessive and unreasonable manner contrary to good faith.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-art-44-para-7-of-the-romanian-constitution\"><strong>Art. 44 para. (7) of the Romanian Constitution<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cThe right of property obliges to respect duties regarding environmental protection and ensuring good neighborliness.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-legal-framework-on-change-of-use-and-neighbors-consent\"><strong>Legal Framework on Change of Use and Neighbors\u2019 Consent<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-legal-regime-for-change-of-use-without-a-building-permit\"><strong>Legal Regime for Change of Use Without a Building Permit<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In assessing whether the neighbors\u2019 refusal was justified, the court also considered the legal framework applicable to changes of use under <strong>Law No. 50\/1991 on authorization of construction works<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-art-11-para-2-of-law-no-50-1991-full-text\"><strong>Art. 11 para. (2) of Law No. 50\/1991 \u2013 Full Text<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><strong>Art. 11 para. (2)<\/strong><br>(2) The following works may be carried out without a building\/demolition permit, provided they do not alter the structural resistance and\/or architectural appearance of buildings located in monument protection zones or in protected built-up areas that are not classified historical monuments or in the process of classification, or if they are not buildings of architectural or historical value, established by approved urban planning documents:<br>(\u2026)<br><strong>g)<\/strong> non-structural, demountable partition changes, made of lightweight materials and that do not alter the internal spatial concept;<br><strong>h)<\/strong> change of use, only if carrying out such change does not require construction\/demolition works for which the law provides the issuance of a construction\/demolition permit, in compliance with approved urban planning documents.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>This provision clarifies that a <strong>change of use<\/strong> can be a juridical operation separate from construction works that require authorization, a point relevant in evaluating neighbors\u2019 consent requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-neighbors-consent-in-the-procedure-for-change-of-use-ordinance-no-839-2009\"><strong>Neighbors\u2019 Consent in the Procedure for Change of Use \u2014 Ordinance No. 839\/2009<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-situations-where-neighbors-consent-is-required\"><strong>Situations Where Neighbors\u2019 Consent Is Required<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The implementing norms for Law No. 50\/1991 describe concrete situations in which neighbors\u2019 consent is required, and the purpose of such requirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-art-27-of-ordinance-no-839-2009-full-text\"><strong>Art. 27 of Ordinance No. 839\/2009 \u2013 Full Text<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><strong>Art. 27<\/strong><br>(1) The neighbors\u2019 consent, provided under point 2.5.6 of section I \u201cWritten Documents\u201d of chapter A \u201cTechnical documentation for the authorization of construction works \u2013 D.T.A.C.,\u201d provided in Annex no. 1 to this ordinance, is required in the following situations:<br><strong>b)<\/strong> for construction works needed in order to change the use in existing buildings;<br><strong>c)<\/strong> in the case of placing constructions with a use different from that of the neighboring buildings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(3) The situations referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (1)(c) correspond to cases where, following a new investment, <strong>situations of discomfort may be created due to incompatibilities between the preexisting function and the proposed one<\/strong>, both when changes of use are made inside the building and when a new construction\u2019s functionality is incompatible with the character and functionality of the area in which it is to be integrated. The most frequent causes involve <strong>affecting the residential function by implementing incompatible uses due to noise, circulation, emissions of fumes, etc.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(5) The neighbors\u2019 consent is valid only in an authentic form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(6) An unjustified refusal to give consent shall be established by the competent court, and its judgment shall be accepted by the issuer of the building\/demolition permit in place of the neighbors\u2019 consent.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-court-s-arguments-on-the-unjustified-nature-of-the-neighbors-refusal\"><strong>Court\u2019s Arguments on the Unjustified Nature of the Neighbors\u2019 Refusal<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-neighbors-right-is-not-discretionary\"><strong>Neighbors\u2019 Right Is Not Discretionary<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Tribunal emphasized that although the law recognizes neighbors\u2019 right to express their consent, <strong>this right cannot be exercised arbitrarily<\/strong>. A refusal is justified only if the change of use would cause <strong>inconveniences greater than normal<\/strong> in neighborly relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-refusal-based-on-hypothetical-future-events\"><strong>Refusal Based on Hypothetical Future Events<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court found that the neighbors\u2019 opposition:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>was based on <strong>assumptions<\/strong> (potential noise, smells, traffic);<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>concerned <strong>future and uncertain events<\/strong>;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>was not supported by <strong>actual, concrete, and proven harm<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the court, a justified refusal must relate to <strong>existing circumstances<\/strong>, not speculative scenarios.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-change-of-use-is-not-the-same-as-authorization-of-a-specific-activity\"><strong>Change of Use Is Not the Same as Authorization of a Specific Activity<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>An essential aspect was clearly distinguishing between:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>changing the use of the property<\/strong>, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>authorizing a specific activity<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The court explained that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>it was <strong>not judging<\/strong> the legality of operating a restaurant, bar, or fast-food establishment;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>such issues fall to the competent authorities during subsequent administrative procedures.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Therefore, neighbors\u2019 refusal based on the <em>possibility<\/em> of future activities was <strong>not relevant<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-good-neighborliness-and-the-balance-of-property-rights\"><strong>Good Neighborliness and the Balance of Property Rights<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Tribunal performed a <strong>proportionality test<\/strong> between:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the claimant\u2019s right to dispose of her property, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the neighbors\u2019 right to comfort and private life.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The court noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>choosing to live in a central area with mixed uses <strong>implies accepting normal inconveniences<\/strong>;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the neighbors\u2019 refusal <strong>unjustifiably affected the claimant\u2019s property right<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-conclusions-and-impact-on-judicial-practice\"><strong>Conclusions and Impact on Judicial Practice<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The <em>Cluj Tribunal<\/em> decision confirms a consistent jurisprudential line:<br><strong>neighbors\u2019 refusal to consent to a change of use must be objectively, currently, and proportionally justified<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The ruling provides clear guidance on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>differentiating neighbors\u2019 consent from the authorization procedure,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>sanctioning abusive exercise of opposition rights,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>protecting property rights in urban areas with mixed uses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Factual Context and Object of the Dispute The dispute analyzed by the Cluj Tribunal involved the judicial supplementation of neighbors\u2019 consent for the change of use of an apartment located on the ground floor of a building in the central and historic area of Cluj-Napoca, from a commercial space to a tertiary-use space. The claimant, &#8230; <\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more-container\"><a title=\"Unjustified Refusal of Neighbors to Give Their Consent for Changing the Use of a Property \u2014 Analysis by the Cluj Tribunal\" class=\"read-more button\" href=\"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/when-is-a-neighbors-refusal-unjustified-analysis-of-a-cluj-tribunal-decision-on-judicial-substitution-of-consent-for-change-of-property-use\/#more-5327\" aria-label=\"Read more about Unjustified Refusal of Neighbors to Give Their Consent for Changing the Use of a Property \u2014 Analysis by the Cluj Tribunal\">Vezi articol<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","masonry-post","generate-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-50"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5327","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5327"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5327\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5328,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5327\/revisions\/5328"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}