A practical guide for companies and entrepreneurs facing the lack of a response from public authorities, in the light of Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation
Your company has filed a request with a public authority — a town hall, a tax body, a ministry, an agency — and the legal deadline for a response has expired without any decision. Business activity is blocked, and follow-up letters remain without effect. Romanian law gives this situation a legal characterisation and provides the injured party with concrete remedies, through administrative litigation.
Legal characterisation: unjustified refusal and failure to decide within the deadline
Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation governs two distinct situations in which the conduct of a public authority opens the way to court action:
Failure to decide a request within the deadline — defined in art. 2 para. (1) letter h) of the law as the failure to respond to the applicant within 30 days of registering the request, unless another deadline is provided by law. This is the situation known in legal doctrine as “administrative silence”.
Unjustified refusal to decide a request — defined in art. 2 para. (1) letter i) as the explicit expression, in excess of power, of the intention not to resolve a person’s request.
Pursuant to art. 2 para. (2) of the law, both situations are treated as unilateral administrative acts, which means that the injured party may bring the matter before the administrative litigation court as if challenging an administrative act proper.
Bear in mindAs a general rule, the authority’s failure to respond does not amount to an approval of the request, but rather opens for the injured party the way to an administrative litigation action. In urban planning and construction matters, however, GEO no. 31/2025 introduced a special regime of tacit approval of permits and consents, presented in the dedicated section below.
The legal response deadlines of the authorities
Public authorities are bound to respond to requests within the deadlines set by law:
| Type of request | Legal deadline | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|
| Request addressed to a public authority (general rule) | 30 days from registration, unless the law provides another deadline | Law no. 554/2004, art. 2 para. (1) letter h) |
| Request for information of public interest | 10 days, or up to 30 days for complex information, with notification of the applicant | Law no. 544/2001, art. 7 |
| Petitions | 30 days from registration, with the possibility of an extension of up to 15 days | Government Ordinance no. 27/2002, art. 8–9 |
| Building permit | up to 30 days from the submission of the complete documentation | Law no. 50/1991, art. 7 para. (1) |
Once the legal deadline has expired without a response from the authority, the conditions for a failure to decide within the deadline are met, and the injured party may initiate court proceedings.
Frequent situations in the practice of commercial companies
The most common situations in which companies face the passivity of authorities are:
- Requests for a building permit or an urban planning certificate left without a response
- Tax appeals not decided within the legal deadline by the tax authority
- Requests for permits and consents addressed to environmental, health or other authorities
- Requests for VAT refunds or other claims against the State left undecided
- Letters sent to local authorities in connection with commercial activities or immovable property
The special regime in urban planning and construction: tacit approval introduced by GEO no. 31/2025
Through Government Emergency Ordinance no. 31/2025, published in the Official Gazette on 30 April 2025, the legislator intervened directly against the passivity of authorities in urban planning and construction matters, amending Law no. 350/2001 on spatial planning and urbanism and Law no. 50/1991 on the authorisation of construction works.
The ordinance sets maximum deadlines within which the competent entities must issue the permits and consents required for spatial planning and urbanism documentation, or for obtaining the building permit, or else request clarifications, additions or amendments. If, within these deadlines, the issuer does not deliver the permit, does not request clarifications and does not communicate a rejection letter, the documentation is deemed complete and correct, and the permit is deemed tacitly granted.
The beneficiary continues the procedure by invoking tacit approval on the basis of a statement on its own responsibility — the template of which was approved by MDLPA Order no. 634/2025 — attesting that, until the expiry of the legal deadlines, it received neither the requested permit nor any request for clarification or completion from the issuer. An essential point to bear in mind: permits issued after the beneficiary has invoked tacit approval no longer produce legal effects.
The limits of tacit approvalThe tacit-approval regime is not absolute: the opportunity permit cannot be regarded as issued through tacit approval, and the mechanism does not apply to permits issued by institutions in the defence, public order and national security system. The correct application of these rules requires a careful analysis of each case file.
For requests that do not fall under this special regime, as well as for situations in which tacit approval cannot be invoked, the ordinary route of administrative litigation remains applicable, as presented below.
The stages of the legal action
- Securing proof that the request was filed. Proof of the request’s registration with the authority is essential — the registration number, the postal confirmation of receipt or proof of electronic transmission. Without this evidence, the expiry of the legal deadline cannot be demonstrated in court.
- Verifying that the legal deadline has elapsed. The deadline is calculated from the date on which the request was registered with the authority. Once the deadline applicable to the type of request has elapsed (the general rule being 30 days), the authority’s passivity is legally characterised as a failure to decide within the deadline.
- The prior complaint stage — the key moment to consult a lawyer. Pursuant to art. 7 para. (5) of Law no. 554/2004, in the case of actions based on failure to decide within the deadline or on unjustified refusal, the prior complaint is not mandatory, and the injured party may bring the matter directly before the court. Even so, it is important to consult a lawyer as early as this stage: the correct characterisation of the authority’s conduct, the choice of strategy — prior complaint or direct referral to the court — and the preservation of evidence decisively determine the success of the subsequent court action.
- Referring the matter to the administrative litigation court. The action is brought before the competent administrative litigation court within 6 months, calculated, pursuant to art. 11 para. (1) of the law, from the date of communication of the unjustified refusal or, as the case may be, from the date of expiry of the legal deadline for deciding the request.
- Formulating the heads of claim. The injured party may request that the authority be ordered to decide the request and to issue the administrative act, as well as, on the basis of art. 8 and art. 18 of the law, compensation for the damage caused, where the loss is proven.
Mind the deadlinesThe 6-month deadline provided for in art. 11 para. (1) of Law no. 554/2004 is a limitation period. Exceeding it may lead to the action being dismissed, which is why it is advisable to consult a lawyer immediately after the authority’s response deadline has expired.
What your company can obtain in court
Through an administrative litigation action based on failure to decide within the deadline or on unjustified refusal, the court may order:
- Ordering the authority to decide the request and to issue the requested administrative act
- Setting a deadline for performance of the obligation imposed on the authority
- Granting damages for the proven material and moral harm (art. 18 para. (3) of Law no. 554/2004)
- Ordering the authority to pay the legal costs
The passivity of a public authority cannot go without a remedy. An administrative litigation action, correctly grounded and brought within the deadline, is the legal instrument through which it can be overcome.
— Gidro & Gidro, from administrative litigation practice
Conclusion
The failure to decide requests within the deadline and the unjustified refusal of public authorities are situations that the law expressly sanctions, providing the injured party with a direct route to the administrative litigation court, without the obligation of a prior complaint.
The most common mistake in practice is passive waiting or sending repeated letters devoid of legal effect, with the risk of losing the 6-month deadline for referring the matter to the court. A correctly built action, brought within the deadline, remains the only route capable of producing concrete results.
Do you need legal assistance?
The Gidro & Gidro team in Cluj-Napoca provides specialised advice and representation in administrative litigation for companies and entrepreneurs.
This material is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For an analysis of your specific situation, we recommend that you consult a lawyer.
