In principle, it all seems straightforward: when a local authority issues a stop order on a construction site, all work must come to a halt. If that order is ignored, sanctions follow.
However, a legal dispute between the municipality of Luxembourg City and a property owner, which ended up before the Court of Cassation, suggests otherwise. Georges Krieger, the lawyer representing the owner, explained the details of the case.
According to Krieger, the owner had received a stop order on further works to his house and complied with it. Yet, two or three months later, three windows were delivered to the site. Rather than letting them sit unused, the owner simply instructed workers to go ahead and install them.
The lower courts found him guilty – both in the initial ruling and on appeal – on the grounds that he had violated the stop order. However, at the final stage, the Court of Cassation overturned those decisions, siding with the owner.
The court ruled that violating a municipal construction stop order does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offence under current legislation. In other words, there is no specific provision in the law that treats the breach of such an order as punishable under criminal law.
Importantly, this only applies to stop orders issued by municipalities. If a construction site is shut down by the Environment Ministry or the Inspectorate of Labour and Mines (ITM), the legal framework is different. In those cases, laws do provide for penalties if stop orders are ignored, according to Krieger.
Krieger further clarified that, generally speaking, criminal liability can arise if construction is carried out incorrectly – whether or not a stop order is in place. That means anyone who builds without proper authorisation, or in violation of existing permits, can still face penalties, according to Krieger.
In the case at hand, the windows were eventually removed and replaced because they did not conform to the dimensions set out in the original building permit. However, the owner was not punished for breaching the stop order itself.
For his lawyer, whose practice specialises in real estate and construction law, this outcome may be a legal win, but it raises broader concerns.
Even with a favourable ruling, Krieger said, the case highlights lingering uncertainty in the system. While he is pleased with the court’s decision, he admits it points to a deeper problem: a legal grey area that urgently needs to be addressed.
This is where the Ministry of Justice comes in. According to Krieger, courts need to be able to respond much more quickly to these kinds of disputes. For that, he argues, a specialised section within the judiciary dedicated to construction matters is needed.
In conclusion, continuing work during a municipal construction freeze is not always punishable by law. But building incorrectly, without the proper permits or in violation of existing permissions, can still lead to legal consequences.
