On 1 January 2026, a new legislative framework for construction and spatial planning came into force in Croatia. Published in the Official Gazette as NN 155/25 and widely referred to as the “Bačić laws”, the package includes a new Law on Construction, a new Law on Spatial Planning and a new Law on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. For anyone assessing a development project in Croatia, understanding this framework is now essential to estimating timelines and risk.

The reform is significant in scope, and its stated purpose is to speed up and digitise the permitting system while strengthening spatial protection. As with any change of this magnitude, the practical effects will become clearer as the new procedures bed in during 2026 and beyond.

A digitised planning and permitting system

Among the most consequential changes is the move to a fully digital planning system. From 2026, spatial and urban plans are to be prepared in a national digital system known as ePlanovi, following a common technical standard, and made publicly accessible. This system is intended to connect directly with the electronic permitting platform, eDozvole. In principle, this should increase transparency and reduce some of the friction and discretion that has historically slowed the process.

The framework also promotes digital building modelling (BIM) and introduces measures intended to shorten the time required to obtain a building permit, including changes to how and when special conditions and connection requirements are gathered from public-law bodies.

A reworked classification of buildings

The legislation revises how buildings are classified by complexity, replacing the previous grouping system. A distinct category for less-complex buildings is defined, with a simplified procedure and lighter oversight. For residential purposes, this category is framed around smaller buildings with a limited number of units and below a defined gross floor area. Larger and more complex residential schemes, the category most relevant to structured development, continue to require full building permits and the associated design, review and supervision obligations.

Greater responsibility on the design team

A recurring theme in the new framework is the shift of responsibility towards the appointed professionals. The designer carries clearer responsibility for ensuring that a project meets the prescribed requirements, including the fundamental requirements for the structure and energy-performance standards. Similarly, the supervising engineer’s duties in overseeing construction are defined in detail. For a developer, this reinforces the importance of appointing a capable, experienced professional team.

Pre-permit inspection and maintenance planning

The framework introduces additional procedural steps at key stages, including provision for a site inspection before a building permit is issued, and a requirement to prepare a maintenance plan before an occupancy permit is granted. These steps are designed to improve build quality and long-term stewardship, and developers should factor them into their programme and cost planning.

Spatial planning and the three-year window for municipalities

On the spatial-planning side, the framework addresses a long-standing obstacle: land designated as buildable but not developable because no urban development plan was in place. Municipalities are given a defined period, of the order of three years, to adopt the relevant urban development plans, with mechanisms intended to prevent indefinite delay. For landowners and developers whose sites have been caught in this gap, this is a potentially meaningful change, though its real-world effect will depend heavily on local implementation.

What it means in practice

For structured residential development, the direction of travel is towards a more digital, more transparent and, in intention, faster system, alongside heightened responsibility for the design and supervision team. The opportunities lie in reduced procedural friction and clearer timelines where the system works as intended. The risks lie in the transition itself: new procedures, new digital platforms and evolving practice among authorities can create short-term uncertainty. As always in Croatia, outcomes will vary by municipality, and local execution capability remains decisive.