(Note: Opinions in the articles are of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union)

How is the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) being implemented across different European countries? Are challenges converging? What lessons can be transferred?

These questions framed the latest meeting of the BUILD UP Board of Ambassadors. Following an introductory session on the European policy context and Spain’s experience, discussions turned to Central and Eastern Europe. Moderated by Dimitrios Athanasiou, Senior Energy Expert at Institute for European Energy and Climate Policy (IEECP), the session brought together BUILD UP Ambassadors from Hungary, Poland, Romania and Serbia to present the state of play in their countries and the main technical, regulatory and financial hurdles they face.

Hungary: bridging the gap between regulation and reality

Presented by the BUILD UP Ambassador in the country, András Reith, CEO and Founder of ABUD – Advanced Building and Urban Design and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Pécs, Hungary offered a more critical perspective. Dr Reith explained that, although Hungary has a solid methodology for energy performance certificates (EPCs), there is not much public information regarding the preparation of the  National Building Renovation Plan, nor an open consultation process.

The building stock displays significant weaknesses: of the 4.6 million households, more than half are classified in low energy category I, and a substantial proportion consists of older dwellings, including approximately 600,000 prefabricated units and a further 600,000 constructed in clay. Many have only been partially renovated, and insulation levels remain limited.

Dr Reith expressed concern about the disconnect between regulation and practical reality: while standards have improved significantly on paper in recent decades, their effective application remains questionable. Finally, he highlighted the limited consideration given to actual user behaviour in energy policies — a key factor not yet fully integrated into regulation, thereby constraining the real impact of adopted measures.

Poland: scaling up financing and delivery

For Poland, the central issue is scale. Dorota Kamrowska-Zaluska, Associate Professor and Programme Director in Urban Development and Metropolitan Management at the Faculty of Architecture, Gdańsk University of Technology,  stressed the magnitude of the financial effort required to modernise a diverse and ageing building stock.

Millions of buildings — many constructed before 1990 — exhibit low efficiency levels. Single-family houses, often reliant on coal and firewood, represent a priority in the national plan, particularly in the context of urban air quality challenges.

A shift in the political approach was also highlighted, following the arrival of a coalition more committed to the green agenda, which has set ambitious targets: to renovate 15% of buildings by 2030 and to reach 50% by 2040 and 2050. The estimated cost of the process amounts to approximately PLN 550 billion, with an average investment of around EUR 20,000 per building.

While regulatory frameworks, digitalisation tools and Energy Performance Certifications (EPC) systems are advancing, fragmentation of financing instruments, administrative burden, a shortage of energy advisers and limited skilled labour capacity remain critical obstacles. 

Romania: structural constraints and digital transition

The implementation of the EPBD in Romania is unfolding within a particularly complex context, marked by structural, socio-economic and administrative challenges. The Romanian BUILD UP Ambassadors, Dorin Beu, president of Romania Green Building Council Transilvania and professor at Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, together with Mihaela Hărmănescu, Associate Professor at the  Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning, highlighted three structural barriers: energy poverty, market fragmentation and a significant data deficit.

Unlike several other Member States, Romania lacks a consolidated information system on its building stock. This limits evidence-based planning and the monitoring of renovation outcomes. The residential stock is highly concentrated in multi-apartment blocks (around 73% of built surface), with 92% private ownership — a configuration that complicates collective decision-making and investment mobilisation.

The Romanian representatives also highlighted legislative inconsistencies and limited institutional capacity. Moreover, the absence of state subsidies makes it more difficult to secure social acceptance of the obligations stemming from the EPBD, particularly in a context where media coverage has drawn attention to rising costs for new housing and the investments required in existing buildings.

Despite these difficulties, Romania has achieved relevant progress. The country is one of the eight EU Member States that have met the deadline of 31 December 2025 and submitted their draft National Building Renovation Plans (NBRPs) and is developing a National Digital Building Register, designed to integrate energy performance data, building logbooks and renovation passports. This interoperable system, currently in a pilot phase, aims to improve monitoring of renovations financed with public funds and to facilitate the mobilisation of private finance — identified as a critical element for the transition.

In the field of public renovation, the refurbishment of 32 schools was highlighted, as well as the creation of the first privately developed positive energy district (PED). Nonetheless, concerns remain regarding the operational management of renovated buildings, particularly in relation to the operation of advanced HVAC systems and the monitoring of actual energy consumption. The speakers stressed the need to designate clear responsibilities to ensure the proper functioning of smart buildings and the transparency of results.

Serbia: gradual alignment under the energy community framework

Serbia’s contribution, delivered by BUILD UP Ambassador Jelena Brajkovic, Research Associate at the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture and former Managing Director of the University of Belgrade Housing Foundation, focused on the country’s gradual alignment with the EPBD as an EU candidate country. Although the Directive is not legally binding for Serbia, the Energy Community framework requires the country progressively to adapt its legislation and energy policies to the European acquis.

Nevertheless, progress in building energy efficiency remains limited: most of the building stock dates from before 1990, more than 50% fails to meet current standards, and the annual renovation rate is approximately 1%.

The residential sector accounts for nearly 70% of energy consumption, while the country remains heavily dependent on coal and gas. Energy certificates — referred to as ‘energy passports’ — are in place, as are support programmes such as the Energy Efficiency Fund, yet financing remains insufficient and fragmented.

Among the principal challenges identified were the low renovation rate, limited availability of funds, administrative complexity and the need for greater public awareness. Although large-scale renovation initiatives in public buildings have been launched with EU support, Serbia is not yet subject to a zero-emission building obligation and continues to progress incrementally in aligning with European requirements.

_{Figure 1. Panel discussion about the EPBD implementation in Central and Eastern European countries.} 
 

National presentations gave way to a dialogue session that facilitated the exchange of questions, concerns and reflections, helping to deepen the discussion of the main challenges addressed during the session. Questions focused on the gap between regulatory ambition and market reality, as well as the impact and design of subsidies. Participants warned that, if not properly targeted, they may distort the market and drive-up prices rather than accelerate the energy transition.

The need to direct support straight to households — particularly the most vulnerable — rather than to use it as a political instrument was also emphasised. The tension between energy efficiency and housing affordability was also discussed, as was the influence of market dynamics on the decisions of buyers and investors.