The contested provisions of the New Building Regulation were found to be contrary to the Constitution by the Plenum of the Council of State.

In particular, the New Building Code was deemed unconstitutional as regards the part that establishes incentives (bonuses) to increase the building conditions (building coefficient, height), compensated by the energy upgrade of buildings and the increase of public spaces and green areas. 

'The system of provisions of the Law, which establishes incentives for an increase in the building conditions (building factor, height) for the construction of buildings, compensating for the energy upgrading of buildings and the increase in public and green areas, is contrary to Article 24(1)(b) of Laws 1 and 2 of the Constitution," the statement said.

It is noted that the unconstitutionality, according to the Court's reasoning, does not apply to building permits whose implementation work has begun even minimally. That is, if it is proven that crews have begun to carry out construction work, even at a very early stage, then they are not affected by the Court's decision and can continue normally under the conditions under which they were issued. 

The Court held that "the effects of unconstitutionality should not engulf building permits whose implementation (construction work) has been shown to have commenced before the present notification," it said. 

The state councillors also ruled as unconstitutional the non-counting in the building factor of the internal exoskeletons (lofts) and the main use space of 35 square meters in the roof of the building, as well as the assimilation of the swimming pool with a planted surface, while on the contrary, the non-counting in the building factor of the bay windows and staircases is not contrary to the Constitution."