Administrative silence in Romania: how to react

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Concrete situations should always be assessed together with a lawyer specialised in administrative and administrative-fiscal litigation.

1. Why is “administrative silence” one of the most frustrating forms of abuse?

A very common situation in practice is this: you submit a request to a public authority in Romania – a city hall, county council, a town planning department, a tax authority (ANAF) or another public body – and nothing happens. No written reply, no phone call, no clarification. Time passes, the legal deadline expires, and the authority remains completely silent.

The Romanian Constitution explicitly recognises the right of a person injured by a public authority including through the failure to solve a request within the legal time limit to obtain recognition of the claimed right or legitimate interest, annulment of the act and compensation for damage. Article 52 of the Romanian Constitution states this clearly, treating silence within the legal time limit in the same way as an administrative act that causes harm.

At the same time, the Constitution guarantees free access to justice: no law may limit your right to go to court to defend your rights and legitimate interests. Article 21 of the Romanian Constitution

In Romanian administrative law, “administrative silence” is not just institutional discourtesy. Under certain conditions, it is treated as an administrative act by omission, which can be challenged in administrative courts (contencios administrativ) just like a written decision.

2. What does “administrative silence” mean under the Romanian Administrative Litigation Law?

The Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004 lays down the general framework for challenging administrative acts in court and gives specific legal meaning to the authority’s failure to respond.

In particular, the law distinguishes between:

Failure to solve a request within the legal time limit – in broad terms, when the authority does not reply within 30 days from registration of the request if no special time limit is set by another law; Article 2 of Law no. 554/2004
Unjustified refusal to solve a request – the express manifestation of will by which the authority refuses to process or grant the request, without a serious legal ground and in breach of its legal duties. Law no. 554/2004 – definitions and general framework

Law no. 554/2004 expressly provides that both unjustified refusal and failure to issue a decision within the legal term are assimilated to unilateral administrative acts. In other words, the authority’s silence is treated as a fictitious administrative act which you can challenge in court.

Article 1 of Law no. 554/2004 also confirms that any person injured by a public authority “through failure to solve a request within the legal time limit” can ask the court to recognise the claimed right or legitimate interest, annul the act (or refusal) and award damages. Law no. 554/2004 – Article 1

3. What are the concrete duties of public authorities to reply to requests?

3.1. The general 30-day time limit for petitions

As a general rule, Government Ordinance no. 27/2002 on petitions sets a 30-day time limit in which public authorities and institutions must send a reply to the petitioner, regardless of whether the outcome is favourable or not. Article 8 of Government Ordinance no. 27/2002

The 30-day term can be extended in certain specific fields, but only under clear legal conditions and normally with prior notification of the petitioner.

This general rule on petitions aligns with the definition of “failure to solve a request within the legal term” in Law no. 554/2004: if no special law sets a different term, 30 days from registration is the basic reference point for assessing whether the authority is silent unlawfully.

3.2. Special time limits in tax and planning (urbanism)

Beyond the general rule, several sectors have their own time limits, for example:

Tax (fiscal) matters: the Fiscal Procedure Code (Law no. 207/2015) provides, as a general rule, that requests submitted by the taxpayer must be solved within 45 days from registration by the tax authority. Article 77 of the Fiscal Procedure Code
Urbanism and construction: Law no. 50/1991 on the authorisation of construction works and its implementing regulations provide time limits (typically around 30 days) for issuing urbanism certificates and other related administrative acts. Law no. 50/1991

In practice, this means that you must check, for each type of request, whether a special law (tax, planning, environmental permits, etc.) sets a specific time limit. If not, the 30-day general rule on petitions and the framework of Law no. 554/2004 will apply.

3.3. “Tacit approval” – a distinct legal mechanism

It is important not to confuse administrative silence with tacit approval. Government Emergency Ordinance no. 27/2003 on tacit approval regulates the situation in which, for certain authorisations, if the authority does not answer within the legal time limit, the authorisation is deemed to have been granted. In other words, silence equals a positive decision, under strict legal conditions. Government Emergency Ordinance no. 27/2003 on tacit approval

Tacit approval is an exception and applies only when:

the legal framework or the authority’s public information explicitly states that the given authorisation procedure falls under tacit approval;
all conditions in Ordinance no. 27/2003 and the relevant special legislation are met (including time limits, required documentation, and scope of the procedure).

In most situations, failure to reply does not mean that the request has been granted. Outside the narrow scope of tacit approval, silence generally indicates a failure to act, which may be a breach of the authority’s duties.

4. When can administrative silence become an “abuse” in legal terms?

Administrative silence becomes legally relevant – and potentially abusive – when several conditions are cumulatively met:

You have submitted a written request to a public authority (city hall, county council, decentralised body, ANAF, etc.) regarding a right or legitimate interest (for example issuing a permit, clarifying your tax situation, issuing a certificate or another administrative act). Articles 1–2 of Law no. 554/2004
The request has been duly registered with the authority (you have a registration number and a clear date, or another solid proof of receipt).
The applicable legal time limit has expired (30 days as a general rule, 45 days in tax matters or another specific term where a special law so provides).
You have not received any reply or written decision explaining the solution and its legal basis.

In this situation, under Law no. 554/2004, the authority’s silence can be treated as an administrative act by omission, which may be challenged before an administrative court, similar to a written decision.

Whether the silence amounts to “abuse” depends on the factual and legal context. For example, it may be more difficult to argue abuse where the authority has requested justified clarifications or additional documents and the delay is objectively linked to legal procedures (e.g. external consultations). By contrast, repeated, unjustified failure to respond despite clear legal duties and complete documentation may more easily be qualified as abusive conduct.

5. What can you do before going to court?

5.1. Check that the legal time limit has really expired

The first step is to verify carefully:

the exact date your request was registered (as shown on the registration stamp, acknowledgement of receipt or electronic confirmation);
the specific statute applicable to your request (general administrative law, tax law, planning, or other special fields) and the time limit that statute sets for solving the request.

In the absence of a specific time limit, you can rely on the 30-day rule provided by Government Ordinance no. 27/2002 on petitions and on the general framework of Law no. 554/2004 regarding “failure to solve a request within the legal term”. OG no. 27/2002 – Article 8 Law no. 554/2004

5.2. Keep solid proof that you submitted the request

If a dispute arises, proof of submission is crucial. Good practice includes:

filing the request at the authority’s registry and asking for your copy to be stamped with the registration number and date;
sending the request by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, preserving both the postal receipt and the acknowledgment;
using official electronic channels (institutional email address, online portal) that generate a confirmation of receipt.

Law no. 554/2004 requires the claimant to attach to the court action a copy of the request with registration details or other proof that the prior administrative procedure has been followed where applicable. Law no. 554/2004 – procedural rules

5.3. Is a prior complaint (“plângere prealabilă”) mandatory?

Law no. 554/2004 regulates, in Article 7, a prior complaint procedure (plângere prealabilă) mainly for situations where an individual administrative act has already been issued and you ask the authority (or its hierarchical superior) to reconsider or revoke it.

For administrative silence, practice is less uniform. In some situations lawyers recommend sending an additional written reminder (a form of prior complaint) asking the authority explicitly to solve the request; in others, they go directly to court once the legal term has expired, especially where the law clearly allows it. The correct approach depends on the specific statute and the case-law of the court that would hear the case.

6. How do you challenge administrative silence before a court?

6.1. What type of action is used?

If the authority does not reply within the legal time limit, you may bring an administrative action (acțiune în contencios administrativ) in which you can ask the court to:

order the authority to issue the administrative act, provide a written answer or carry out a specific administrative operation (for example, issuing a certificate or permit);
where appropriate, award compensation for material and/or non-material damage caused by the delay.

Article 18 of Law no. 554/2004 expressly provides that the court may oblige the public authority to issue the administrative act, perform an administrative operation or issue an official document, and may award compensation and set daily penalties for delay. Law no. 554/2004 – Article 18

6.2. Time limit for bringing the action

Article 11 of Law no. 554/2004 sets a general 6-month prescription term for bringing an action, which, among others, runs from:

the date when the legal time limit for solving the request expired, in cases of administrative silence (when no reply was given within the time limit). Law no. 554/2004 – Article 11

This 6-month period is generally considered a limitation period. In some circumstances, the law allows a longer period (up to one year), if there are well-grounded reasons assessed by the court.

Correctly identifying the starting point of this period can be legally complex, especially where there have been partial replies, incomplete communications or parallel administrative procedures. This is one of the issues where specialist legal advice is particularly important.

6.3. Which court is competent?

The competence rules in administrative litigation depend on the nature of the authority and the act:

as a rule, administrative and fiscal sections of tribunals (tribunale) hear in first instance a wide range of disputes involving local authorities and many categories of administrative acts;
courts of appeal hear in first instance certain categories of disputes, particularly those involving central authorities or matters explicitly allocated to them by law.

Competence is regulated in Article 10 of Law no. 554/2004 and is further clarified by case-law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) on conflicts of competence. Law no. 554/2004 – Article 10

7. What can the court decide if administrative silence is unlawful?

If the court finds that the legal conditions for administrative litigation are met (existence of a right or legitimate interest, a request filed, expiry of the legal term, and harmful silence of the authority), it may order, in particular:

obliging the authority to issue the requested administrative act, to give a reasoned answer, or to perform a specific administrative operation;
setting a precise deadline for compliance (e.g. 10 or 30 days from the date the judgment becomes final);
imposing a fine on the head of the authority (the decision-maker personally) if the judgment is not enforced in due time – Article 24 of Law no. 554/2004 provides for a daily fine of 20% of the minimum gross wage per day of delay;
awarding damages for material loss (financial damage, additional costs, lost opportunities) and, where justified, non-material damage.

The fine is intended as a coercive mechanism and sanction for non-compliance with court judgments, complementary to compensation owed to the claimant. Case-law and doctrine underline its role in strengthening the effectiveness of administrative justice and ensuring that court decisions have real practical impact.

8. Typical situations where administrative silence is problematic

Without discussing particular cases, some frequent scenarios in practice include:

you submit a request for a building permit or urbanism certificate, and the city hall does not answer within the time limits set by Law no. 50/1991 and its regulations;
you ask the tax authority (ANAF) for clarification or correction of your tax position, or for refund of a sum, and you receive no answer within the 45-day term provided by the Fiscal Procedure Code;
you request the issuance of a certificate or another administrative document (for example a certificate necessary for another procedure), and the institution remains silent;
you request execution of a court judgment against a public authority or implementation of a legal provision, and the authority fails to act.

In these situations, both doctrine and case-law in administrative litigation insist that the absence of an answer cannot block the individual’s access to justice: if the legal term has passed and the authority remains silent, the individual must be able to turn to the courts to obtain an effective remedy. Analyses regarding the right of persons injured by public authorities

9. Why is it important to consult a lawyer in cases of administrative silence?

Even though the basic rules may seem straightforward (30- or 45-day time limits, 6-month action term, possibility to ask the court to compel the authority), in practice many nuances arise:

special laws may set different time limits or procedures for certain sectors (tax, planning, environment, regulated professions);
some situations require prior use of administrative or quasi-judicial procedures before going to court;
the starting point of the limitation period may be debatable where communications have been incomplete or ambiguous;
it may be strategically important to combine a claim for compelling the authority to act with a claim for damages and penalties.

A lawyer specialised in administrative and administrative-fiscal law can assess the concrete context, identify all applicable statutes and deadlines, and build a realistic strategy – either to obtain a response from the authority without litigation, or to use administrative silence as a basis for court proceedings where appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions on Administrative Silence (FAQ)

1. How long does a city hall or other authority have to reply to my request?

As a general rule, public authorities must reply within 30 days from registration of your petition, according to Government Ordinance no. 27/2002. In some areas, a special statute sets a different term – for example, the Fiscal Procedure Code provides a 45-day term for solving requests submitted by taxpayers. If a specific law sets a different term, that special term applies.

2. If I do not receive any reply within the time limit, does it mean my request has been approved?

Not automatically. Tacit approval is a distinct mechanism regulated by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 27/2003 and applies only to certain authorisation procedures expressly designated by law. In most situations, failure to reply is considered administrative silence, which may be challenged in administrative courts but does not amount, by itself, to a positive decision.

3. What can I ask the court to do if the authority has not replied?

You can ask the court to order the authority to solve your request and to issue or communicate the relevant administrative act within a set deadline. In addition, you may request compensation for the damage caused by the delay, and, where the authority does not comply with the judgment, the law allows the court to impose daily fines on the head of the authority until execution.

4. What is the time limit for bringing a court action based on administrative silence?

In most cases, the time limit is 6 months from the date when the legal term for solving your request expired. This is generally a limitation period. In certain situations, law and case-law allow a longer term (up to one year) where there are good reasons. Determining the exact time limit in your case requires an analysis of the legal framework and factual circumstances.

5. Do I have to file a prior complaint if I have not received any reply?

The general rule on prior complaint mainly concerns administrative acts that have already been issued. For administrative silence, practice is more nuanced: in some cases, it is advisable to send an additional written reminder; in others, it may be possible to go directly to court after the legal term expires. The correct path depends on the applicable special law and on the circumstances of the case.

6. Can I claim damages just because I did not receive a reply?

Yes, but you must prove a concrete loss (for example: financial loss, additional expenses, lost opportunities caused by the delay, or reputational harm). The administrative court may award material and, where appropriate, moral damages, but it will assess the amount of compensation based on the evidence presented.

7. Is administrative silence always an abuse?

Not every delay or absence of a reply is automatically an abuse. There may be situations in which the authority has legally justified reasons for extending the time limit or for requesting additional information. Administrative silence becomes problematic where the authority unjustifiably fails to comply with its legal duty to reply, and this failure significantly affects your rights or legitimate interests.