{"id":6667,"date":"2026-03-03T05:51:28","date_gmt":"2026-03-03T05:51:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/avocatbucuresti.ro\/?p=6667"},"modified":"2026-11-07T13:15:32","modified_gmt":"2026-11-07T13:15:32","slug":"refuzul-nejustificat-al-autoritatii-daune-in-contencios","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/avocatbucuresti.ro\/en\/refuzul-nejustificat-al-autoritatii-daune-in-contencios\/","title":{"rendered":"Unjustified refusal by a public authority: claims and damages"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The essential legal framework<\/h2>

Romania\u2019s Administrative Litigation Act, Law No 554\/2004, distinguishes between failure to determine a request within the statutory period and an unjustified refusal to determine it. The default response period is 30 days where no different statutory period applies. An unjustified refusal involves an express refusal amounting to an excess of power. Both situations may be treated as administrative acts for the purposes of judicial review.<\/p>

Depending on the claim and the applicable rules, the court may order the authority to issue a document, perform an administrative operation or compensate the loss caused. Articles 18\u201319 also address damages and the circumstances in which compensation may be sought separately from an annulment claim.<\/p>\n

What constitutes an unjustified refusal?<\/h2>

An unjustified refusal is an express indication that the authority will not determine the applicant\u2019s request, in circumstances involving an excess of power. It is distinct from simple silence. The Act also addresses failure to implement a favourable administrative act, as defined by Article 2.<\/p>

The court examines whether the authority actually refused the request, for example through a letter, decision or other communication, and whether the refusal exceeded the lawful limits of its powers. Relevant issues may include the statutory purpose, competence, proportionality and whether a purely formal approach improperly defeats a protected right. Where the authority has discretion, judicial review concerns its lawful exercise.<\/p>\n

Administrative silence and express refusal<\/h2>

Silence means that the authority has not replied within the applicable period. Express refusal is an active statement declining the request. The distinction matters when identifying the remedy and calculating procedural time limits.<\/p>

A claim may seek an order requiring a decision or administrative act, recognition of the right concerned and, where the conditions are met, compensation. It is necessary to identify what the authority was legally required to do and what the court can properly order.<\/p>\n

The prior administrative complaint<\/h2>

Article 7 establishes a prior-complaint procedure, but also contains exceptions. In particular, Article 7(5) exempts the situations covered by Article 2(2), which concern unjustified refusal and failure to respond within the statutory period. Special legislation and the precise nature of the request must nevertheless be checked.<\/p>

A further letter may sometimes help clarify the authority\u2019s position, but it should not be confused with a compulsory prior complaint or assumed to extend the time for going to court. Separate damages proceedings under Article 19 also require examination of their particular procedural basis.<\/p>\n

When can damages be awarded?<\/h2>

Compensation is not automatic merely because the authority acted unlawfully or replied late. The claimant must establish the applicable elements of liability, including the unlawful act, refusal or delay, the loss sustained and the causal link. The relevant liability rules and any issue of fault must be considered in the context of the case.<\/p>

Where annulment was sought without damages, Article 19 addresses a separate compensation claim. Its limitation period is linked to when the claimant knew or should have known the extent of the loss. Do not assume that time always starts with the final annulment judgment: the factual circumstances and the applicable case law must be examined.<\/p>\n

Burden of proof and useful evidence<\/h2>

The claimant should retain the original request, proof of registration, the authority\u2019s responses and any relevant decisions. A separate compensation claim may also require the earlier judgment and evidence establishing its procedural status.<\/p>

Documents such as bank statements, invoices, expert evidence and other records can help establish the amount of the loss and its connection with the authority\u2019s conduct. The relevant administrative file will often be held by the authority; the court can require its production under the applicable procedural rules.<\/p>\n

Practical effects and procedural pitfalls<\/h2>