If you received a contravention report (proces-verbal) from ANAF or DGAF (Anti-Fraud), the practical issue is speed: short deadlines, fast enforcement and evidence that can disappear. This service is for companies and individuals who need a clear plan for challenging the report and any related measures (fine, confiscation, complementary measures) in court, based on the documents and the timeline.
Note: The information is general and does not replace legal advice. Facts, documents and timeline matter.
When you may need this
- You received an ANAF/DGAF contravention report with a fine and you want to challenge it within the legal deadline.
- The report orders confiscation (goods, cash) or other complementary measures and you need a court review.
- DGAF/ANAF findings are factually wrong (quantities, dates, locations, invoices, stock or transport evidence).
- The report has formal defects (missing mandatory elements, unclear legal basis, wrong identification data).
- You were not properly heard, or the report relies on incomplete explanations or selectively quoted statements.
- There is parallel tax risk (inspection, assessments) and you need to avoid inconsistent positions across procedures.
- You need to document chain-of-custody for seized goods or evidence used in the report.
- You want to understand whether filing a complaint can suspend enforcement and what practical steps follow.
What we do, step by step
- Urgency check: confirm the service date of the report and calculate the court-deadline window.
- Document review: read the report and annexes, identify the legal basis and the exact alleged conduct.
- Defects mapping: check mandatory elements, competence, signature, identification, description of facts and proof references.
- Facts reconstruction: rebuild the timeline (transactions, deliveries, stock movements) to test the inspector’s narrative.
- Evidence plan: identify what documents, witnesses or technical proof can realistically be used in court.
- Draft and file the contraventional complaint (plângere contravențională) with structured legal reasoning and exhibits.
- Procedural strategy: address enforcement risks, confiscation implications and any parallel tax/criminal exposure.
- Representation: attend hearings, manage evidence requests and present the case in a coherent, document-driven way.
Documents / information useful for a first review
| Document | Why it matters | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| ANAF/DGAF contravention report (proces-verbal) + annexes | Defines the allegations, the legal basis and the measures applied | Bring the full set, including annexed lists and photos |
| Proof of communication/service (postal notice, email, registry number) | Used to calculate the challenge deadline | Keep envelopes, delivery confirmations and screenshots |
| Invoices, contracts, delivery notes, CMR / transport documents | Key for factual rebuttal (origin, destination, quantities, dates) | Organise by date and counterparty |
| Stock records, warehouse logs, POS/ERP exports | Supports the inventory and movement story against the inspector’s findings | Export raw data and keep audit trails where possible |
| Photos, CCTV extracts, GPS logs (where relevant) | Can confirm location, timing, access or the condition of goods | Preserve original files and metadata |
| Prior inspection documents and correspondence with ANAF/DGAF | Shows context, prior explanations and procedural steps | Include requests, answers and minutes of hearings |
Risks and common mistakes
- Missing the deadline because the service date is not tracked carefully.
- Paying or signing without understanding the legal effects and the evidence value of the paperwork.
- Submitting inconsistent explanations across tax, anti-fraud and court procedures.
- Relying on verbal narratives with no documents, while the report relies on written findings.
- Not preserving digital evidence (emails, ERP exports, CCTV), then trying to recreate it later.
- Ignoring confiscation specifics (third-party ownership, traceability, proportionality arguments).
- Focusing only on “fairness” arguments instead of legal defects and evidence.
FAQ
What is the deadline to challenge an ANAF/DGAF contravention report?
Under the general contraventional framework, the complaint is typically filed within 15 days from the date the report is served (handed over or communicated). In practice, the safe approach is to treat the service date as the starting point and verify whether a special act sets a different rule in your case.
Does filing the court complaint suspend enforcement of the fine or measures?
In the general framework, filing the contraventional complaint suspends enforcement. Confiscation and third-party claims can raise additional procedural details, so the exact approach should follow the wording of the report and the applicable act.
Can confiscation be challenged if the goods belong to someone else?
Confiscation can be challenged, and the ownership chain and documents are central. A third party may need to show title (invoices, contracts, delivery proof) and link the goods to that title, so evidence preservation is important from day one.
What usually wins these cases: technical defects or factual rebuttal?
Both can matter. Some cases are decided on legality (mandatory elements, competence, procedural rights), while others turn on documents that contradict the inspector’s factual narrative. A practical strategy tests both tracks early and prioritises the strongest evidence.
Can a contraventional case affect a tax dispute or a criminal file?
Yes. The same facts can be assessed in different procedures (contraventional, tax, and sometimes criminal). That is why the written narrative, the documents used and the statements made should be consistent and planned as a whole.
Contact
Related internal links
Tax Law & Tax Litigation (services)
Challenging an ANAF tax assessment (blog)
Legal fees (hourly / fixed / hybrid)
Law Office Services (all practice areas)
Sources
- OG no. 2/2001 on the general contraventional framework (Portal Legislativ)
- Law no. 207/2015 (Fiscal Procedure Code) (Portal Legislativ)
- Emergency Ordinance no. 74/2013 on ANAF reorganisation & Anti-Fraud (DGAF) (Portal Legislativ)
- Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation (Portal Legislativ)
- ANAF Anti-Fraud (DGAF) control information page