News
Validity Period of Building Notices Extended to Four Years: Does the New Period Also Apply to Previously Submitted Notices?
Validity Period of Building Notices Extended to Four Years: Does the New Period Also Apply to Previously Submitted Notices?
On 1 August 2026, an amendment to § 37 of the Estonian Building Code (EhS) entered into force, extending the validity period of building notices from two to four years. The validity period determines the timeframe during which construction work may be carried out on the basis of a building notice. Extending this period to four years gives developers more time to complete construction work and is expected to reduce the need to submit repeated building notices and provide information to the Building Register.
In practice, uncertainty has arisen as to whether the new, longer validity period also applies to building notices submitted before the amendment entered into force. When amending § 37 of the Building Code, the legislator did not introduce any transitional provisions specifying that the previous two-year period would continue to apply to notices submitted before the amendment took effect, or that the new validity period would apply only to notices submitted after its entry into force.
In the absence of transitional provisions, the application of the amended § 37 depends on whether the building notice was still valid when the amendment entered into force. If the previous two-year period had already expired by that date, the right to carry out construction work had ceased. The amendment does not reinstate that right, and a new building notice must therefore be submitted before construction can proceed. However, if the right to carry out construction work had not expired when the amendment entered into force, § 37 may be interpreted as allowing the new four-year validity period to apply also to previously submitted building notices that remained valid at that time.
This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the amendment, which is to reduce the administrative burden. If building notices that were still valid when the amendment entered into force remained subject to the two-year period, a new notice would have to be submitted once that period expired in order to continue construction. Applying the four-year period would instead allow the same construction work to continue under the original notice. Retaining the two-year period for previously submitted notices would therefore perpetuate the very administrative burden that the amendment was intended to reduce.
Importantly, the new four-year validity period is calculated from the date on which the building notice was submitted, the date on which requirements arising from the review procedure were imposed by an administrative act, or the date on which the building design documentation was approved, as applicable. The period does not therefore begin on the date the amendment entered into force. Accordingly, the starting date must be determined separately for each building notice. Where necessary, it is advisable to clarify the application of the new rules with the relevant local authority. This will help establish the legal basis for proceeding before planning further construction work or submitting a new notice.
Sandra Kaas is an Attorney at RASK and Co-Head of the firm's Environmental Law and Spatial Planning practice. She advises clients on construction and planning law matters, including building permit and occupancy permit procedures, dealings with local authorities, and dispute resolution.
In practice, uncertainty has arisen as to whether the new, longer validity period also applies to building notices submitted before the amendment entered into force. When amending § 37 of the Building Code, the legislator did not introduce any transitional provisions specifying that the previous two-year period would continue to apply to notices submitted before the amendment took effect, or that the new validity period would apply only to notices submitted after its entry into force.
In the absence of transitional provisions, the application of the amended § 37 depends on whether the building notice was still valid when the amendment entered into force. If the previous two-year period had already expired by that date, the right to carry out construction work had ceased. The amendment does not reinstate that right, and a new building notice must therefore be submitted before construction can proceed. However, if the right to carry out construction work had not expired when the amendment entered into force, § 37 may be interpreted as allowing the new four-year validity period to apply also to previously submitted building notices that remained valid at that time.
This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the amendment, which is to reduce the administrative burden. If building notices that were still valid when the amendment entered into force remained subject to the two-year period, a new notice would have to be submitted once that period expired in order to continue construction. Applying the four-year period would instead allow the same construction work to continue under the original notice. Retaining the two-year period for previously submitted notices would therefore perpetuate the very administrative burden that the amendment was intended to reduce.
Importantly, the new four-year validity period is calculated from the date on which the building notice was submitted, the date on which requirements arising from the review procedure were imposed by an administrative act, or the date on which the building design documentation was approved, as applicable. The period does not therefore begin on the date the amendment entered into force. Accordingly, the starting date must be determined separately for each building notice. Where necessary, it is advisable to clarify the application of the new rules with the relevant local authority. This will help establish the legal basis for proceeding before planning further construction work or submitting a new notice.
Sandra Kaas is an Attorney at RASK and Co-Head of the firm's Environmental Law and Spatial Planning practice. She advises clients on construction and planning law matters, including building permit and occupancy permit procedures, dealings with local authorities, and dispute resolution.