In brief

  • Anyone who challenges a disability classification certificate can no longer walk out of the procedure with a lower degree than the one they were given. Article 14(8) of the new rules of procedure states that, if the documents point to a lower classification, that finding cannot change the degree to the detriment of the person who lodged the challenge. The rules it replaces, in force since 4 March 2026, expressly allowed classification in a lower degree.
  • The challenge has to be lodged within 30 calendar days of the date the certificate was communicated, with the secretariat of the county assessment board that issued it. Under the law, the Higher Board has 60 working days to answer.
  • The board examines only the documents that formed the basis of the contested certificate. Medical papers obtained after the certificate was issued can no longer change the classification within the challenge, only in a fresh assessment.
Act: Order no. 784/2026 of the President of the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 751 of 4 September 2026
In force from: 4 September 2026, except for Article 8 of the rules, postponed to a date to be set by a further order

Anyone challenging the degree of disability set in their own county no longer runs the risk of getting a lower one back. The rules of organisation and operation of the Higher Board for the Assessment of Adults with Disabilities, approved by Order no. 784/2026 and published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 751 of 4 September 2026, expressly close off that possibility. The Higher Board is the last administrative step before the courts: challenges against certificates issued by the county boards land there, and it is also the body that can order a person to be reassessed, including a referral to the National Institute for Medical Expertise and Work Capacity Recovery, a procedure the Ministry of Labour set out separately in August 2026.

A great deal rides on this for a large group of people. On 31 March 2026, according to the Authority’s statistical bulletin, Romania had 886,002 adults holding a disability classification certificate, of whom 872,907 lived with their families or independently and 13,095 in institutions. The degree written on the certificate governs the monthly allowance, the complementary personal budget, the right to a personal assistant at the severe degree, tax exemptions and free transport.

The text that changes the picture most is Article 14(8). If, in examining the challenge, the Higher Board sees that the documents would support a lower classification than the one on the certificate, that finding cannot lead, within the challenge, to an outcome less favourable to the person who brought it. The challenge is dismissed as unfounded and the certificate stands as issued. The board may examine separately, outside the challenge, whether the conditions for a reassessment of its own motion are met.

The second limitation concerns the evidence. Article 14(3) states that only the documents and information that formed the basis of the assessment and of the issue of the contested certificate are examined. Papers showing a change in the state of health that arose after the certificate was issued cannot be used as grounds for altering the classification in the challenge procedure. Anyone whose condition has worsened since the assessment has a different route: a fresh application for assessment to the county board.

The rules also introduce a third possible outcome, alongside allowing the challenge and dismissing it on the merits. If a file is lodged by a legal representative, by an agent or by an authorised person and does not have attached the document proving that capacity, the secretariat of the county board asks for it to be supplied within 5 working days of the request being communicated. If the deadline passes without an answer, the challenge is dismissed as inadmissible, without the merits of the case being reached.

The rules further provide that decisions of the Higher Board will be issued electronically, signed with an electronic signature by the members present and authenticated with a qualified electronic seal, and that the signatures will not be displayed on the document. Except that Article 2 of the order postpones this article until the Authority’s IT system has the necessary functions, and the date will be set by a further order of the same president. Until then, decisions are issued and signed under the old procedure.

What it changes in practice

For someone who has received a certificate with a moderate degree and believes it should be marked, the risk calculation changes completely. Under the previous rules, approved by Order no. 186/2026, Article 13(3) allowed the Higher Board to issue a decision classifying the person in a lower degree, or even a decision refusing classification, and Article 12(3) stated that the outcome was final „whatever the degree and the period of validity gained or lost”. In other words, a challenge could cost you the degree. From 4 September 2026 it no longer can.

A decision allowing the challenge takes effect retroactively. Article 14(11) states that the classification decision issued after a challenge is allowed takes effect from the date the contested certificate was issued, not from the date of the decision. In practice, anyone who obtains a higher degree is entitled to the money owed for the whole period that has passed, not only from the moment the challenge is settled.

The route the decision takes to reach the person is now regulated step by step. The secretariat of the Higher Board has 5 working days from issue to send the decision to the county assessment board, and that board has a further 5 working days from receipt to communicate it to the person. Communication is done electronically, to the email addresses given for that purpose, and only if that is impossible, by the other means provided by law.

Anyone who loses a challenge is not left without guidance, at least on paper. Article 14(14) requires the specialists of the complex assessment service and those of the assessment board to inform the person about other support services they may receive under Social Assistance Law no. 292/2011, following an assessment of their individual needs.

The rules also contain a new third chapter, on the enforcement of court judgments. Where the court itself sets the degree and type of disability, the Higher Board issues the decision in accordance with the operative part of the judgment. Where the court merely orders the board to reopen its examination or to issue a new act, the board reopens the procedure and issues a decision that must be accompanied by annex A, the document setting out the reasons.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Order no. 784/2026 repeals Order no. 186/2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 167 of 4 March 2026. The rules it replaces were in force for exactly six months. The differences are not cosmetic.

The direction in which the degree can change. The old Article 13(3) provided, in these words, for a „decision classifying the person in a higher degree, or classifying them in a degree lower than the one certified, or a decision refusing classification by degree of disability”. The new Article 14(7) allows a challenge only where the correct application of the criteria leads to a classification more favourable to the person, and paragraph (8) expressly forbids the less favourable outcome.

Where the challenge is lodged. The old Article 8(1) allowed it to be lodged either with the secretariat of the assessment board or with the Authority’s registry. What is more, paragraph (3) treated even a simple petition lodged in time with any public authority as a challenge, if it showed dissatisfaction with the certificate. The new Article 10(1) keeps a single route, the secretariat of the county assessment board, and the saving clause for petitions has gone. Anyone who sends an application to another institution now risks missing the 30 day deadline without knowing it.

Which documents can be relied on. The old Article 13(1) said only that the documents underlying the classification are examined. The new Article 14(3) adds an express ban on using papers that attest to later changes in the person’s condition.

The possible outcomes. The old rules knew allowing and dismissal, with a single named ground for dismissal, late lodging. The new rules have three distinct grounds: out of time, inadmissible and unfounded, each with its own effects.

The Institute’s deadline. The old Article 18(1) gave the Institute 30 days for the medical assessment, but with an obligation to fit within the 60 working days of the reassessment. The new Article 21(1) provides for 30 working days from receipt of the request and drops the ceiling. The difference, in calendar days, is roughly six extra weeks in cases referred to the Institute.

Attendance at sittings. A member who was absent without justification from three consecutive sittings could be proposed for replacement. The threshold has now dropped to two sittings.

What has been added. A new first annex, with the rights and obligations of board members, from the principle of professional independence to the duty to declare conflicts of interest. A new chapter on the enforcement of court judgments. Another form of locally administered social support also reached the Constitutional Court: the monthly aid for the water and sewerage bill. A mechanism under which the Higher Board, if it finds the offence in Article 100(1)(h) of Law no. 448/2006, draws up the documents and proposes the penalty, while imposing it falls to the Authority’s internal control unit. Under the old rules, the report went to the National Agency for Payments and Social Inspection.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • A challenge can no longer produce a worse result than the one being challenged. This is the most important change and it removes the reason why many people gave up on challenging at all.
  • Allowing a challenge takes effect from the date of the contested certificate, so the money owed is recovered for the whole period.
  • There are now written deadlines for every step the decision travels, 5 working days to send it and another 5 to communicate it, where things used to be vaguer.
  • Setting out the reasons in annex A becomes mandatory for dismissals as unfounded too, not only where the challenge is allowed, with the chapters of the medical and psychosocial criteria taken into account spelled out.
  • The clean separation between the challenge and a reassessment means a possible reassessment can no longer delay the settlement of the challenge.
  • Applications against decisions of the Higher Board remain exempt from court stamp duty.

What remains a problem

  • The protection against having the degree cut sits in an order of the president of an authority, not in a statute. It can be withdrawn by another order, without a debate in Parliament, exactly the way it was introduced.
  • The single route for lodging, with the secretariat of the county board, plus the loss of the clause that saved petitions sent elsewhere, turns a mistake about the address into a forfeiture of the right.
  • The ban on using new medical documents is sound in theory, but in practice people turn up with test results obtained in the meantime and only find out at the dismissal that they did not count.
  • The article bringing in electronic issue of decisions is postponed indefinitely, and the date will be set by a future order that nobody can anticipate.
  • The rules provide no consequence at all if the 60 working days set by the law pass without an answer. The only route left is the court.
  • The person does not appear before the Higher Board and is not heard. The challenge is decided on the file, and the person who brought it has no chance to explain anything.

Practical advice

  1. Count the 30 days from the date you received the certificate, not from the date written on it. They are calendar days, so Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays are included. Keep proof of the communication, the envelope or the acknowledgement of receipt.
  2. Lodge the challenge with the secretariat of the assessment board in the county or sector that issued the certificate, not with the Authority and not with the town hall. Ask for a registration number and keep it.
  3. Use the form in annex no. 2 to the rules and fill in every box. The form asks for the grounds of the challenge, and that space should not be left empty.
  4. If someone else lodges it for you, attach from the start the document proving the capacity of legal representative, the power of attorney or the authorisation. Without it you have only 5 working days from the request to put things right, otherwise the challenge is dismissed as inadmissible.
  5. Check what actually went into the file sent to the Higher Board. Under the footnote, the box for attached documents on the form is for the papers you lodged at the assessment and believe were not taken into account.
  6. Do not build the challenge on tests carried out after the certificate was issued. Those cannot change the classification in this procedure. For a worsening that has arisen since, ask for a fresh assessment from the county board.
  7. Give an email address you actually read. Decisions are sent and communicated electronically, and the form expressly asks for your consent to the use of your contact details.
  8. If the answer is more than 60 working days late from the registration of the challenge, you can go to the administrative and tax division of the tribunal. The application is exempt from stamp duty.
  9. If you receive a decision dismissing the challenge, ask in writing for annex A. That is the document which says, chapter by chapter from the medical and psychosocial criteria, why it was decided that way, and it is the paper you will need in court.
  10. If you are called for a reassessment, the summons comes at least 20 working days beforehand. Bring your identity document, the summons letter and the documents required by the reassessment decision. Failing to attend leads to a decision refusing classification.

Frequently asked questions

Can I lose my degree of disability if I challenge it?
No, not through the challenge procedure. Article 14(8) of the rules states that, if the documents would support a lower classification, that finding cannot lead to a less favourable outcome in the settlement of the challenge. The challenge is dismissed as unfounded and the certificate stands. The board may, however, examine separately whether the conditions for a reassessment of its own motion are met, which is a distinct procedure.
How long do I have to lodge the challenge?
Within 30 calendar days of the date the certificate was communicated, under Article 87(5) of Law no. 448/2006. The deadline is strict. A challenge lodged later is dismissed as out of time, without the merits being examined at all.
Where do I lodge the challenge?
With the secretariat of the board for the assessment of adults with disabilities in the county or sector that issued the contested certificate, under Article 10(1). That board sends it on to the Higher Board within 5 working days of registration, together with your file and with proof that the certificate was communicated to you.
How long before I get an answer?
Law no. 448/2006, in Article 90^2(5), requires the Higher Board to settle the challenge within 60 working days of registration. The rules do not repeat that deadline, they say only when it starts to run. To the 60 days you add 5 working days for sending the file at the start and another 10 working days at the end, for sending and communicating the decision.
Do I have to appear before the Higher Board?
No. The challenge is settled on the documents. The rules make no provision for hearing the person who brought it, nor for their attendance at the sitting. Physical attendance is required only in the reassessment procedure, before the county complex assessment service or at the National Institute for Medical Expertise.
Can I submit new test results, obtained after I received the certificate?
You can submit them, but they will not count. Article 14(3) states that documents attesting to changes in the situation that arose after the certificate was issued cannot form the basis for altering the classification in the challenge procedure. For a condition that has worsened since, the route is a fresh application for assessment to the county board.
What happens if my challenge is allowed? When do I get the money?
The classification decision issued after a challenge is allowed takes effect from the date the contested certificate was issued, under Article 14(11), not from the date of the decision. The difference in entitlements is owed for the whole period between those two moments.
Where do I appeal against a decision of the Higher Board?
To the administrative and tax division of the tribunal, under Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004. Article 23(2) of the rules states that the application is exempt from court stamp duty. The general deadline in Law no. 554/2004 is 6 months.
How many people sit on the Higher Board and how does it decide?
Nine members, under Article 90^1(2) of Law no. 448/2006: 2 doctors from work capacity expertise or physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2 doctors from other specialties, 2 social workers, 2 psychologists and a lawyer with experience in disability. The composition can be supplemented by up to 5 more members. A sitting is valid with at least half plus one of the members, and a decision is taken by the vote of at least half plus one of those present. Members are appointed for 4 years.
What does dismissal as inadmissible mean?
It is the outcome where the challenge is lodged by a legal representative, by an agent or by an authorised person, and the document proving that capacity was not attached and was not supplied within the 5 working days allowed. The file is no longer examined on the merits, and the certificate stands.

Errors and inconsistencies in the published text

  • Article 13(2), a deadline used up before the obligation begins. Where it finds that the file received does not contain the mandatory documents, the Higher Board asks for them to be supplied „with observance of the deadline laid down in Article 11(1)”. Except that Article 11(1) sets 5 working days from the registration of the challenge with the county board, which is precisely the window in which the incomplete file was sent in the first place. By the time the duty to supply the documents arises, the deadline referred to has already expired. A reader acting in good faith can reach two conclusions: either the documents are to be sent „without delay”, with no deadline, or within 5 working days of the request, by analogy. The repealed rules did not have the problem, because there the cross reference was to a 3 working day deadline running from the request itself.
  • Article 12, the starting point of the statutory deadline for settlement. Law no. 448/2006 states, in Article 90^2(5), that the 60 working days run „from the date the challenge is registered”, and Article 10(1) of the rules provides for a single route for lodging, the secretariat of the county board. Article 12, however, moves the start of the deadline to the date the challenge is registered with the Authority’s registry, a moment the rules regulate nowhere, because they have removed the option of lodging there directly. The repealed rules were coherent on this point: Article 8(1) expressly allowed lodging with the Authority’s registry. The result is that the text does not allow the date from which the statutory deadline is counted to be established, and the difference is at least 5 working days, in a procedure where missing the deadline opens the way to the courts.
  • Article 21(1), a deadline doubled compared with the statute. The rules give the National Institute for Medical Expertise and Work Capacity Recovery 30 working days to carry out the assessment and send the report. Law no. 448/2006 provides, in Article 90^3(7)(b), that the Institute communicates the report „within 15 days”. An order of the president of an authority cannot extend a deadline set by statute, and the difference is roughly four weeks of waiting for the person being reassessed. The repealed rules provided for 30 days, also above the 15 in the statute, but at least required them to fit within the general 60 working day deadline for the reassessment, a ceiling that has now gone.

Editorial analysis

These rules are worth reading as an answer to something. For six months, between 4 March and 3 September 2026, a text was in force telling the Higher Board that it could classify the person bringing a challenge in a lower degree or leave them without one at all, and that the result was final „whether gained or lost”. For someone living on a disability allowance, that meant every challenge was a bet on everything. The new Article 14(8) calls off the bet. It is a real correction, and the fact that it came after half a year says something about how quickly the effect of a form of words in a set of rules shows up in practice.

Except that the protection does not carry the legal weight of the problem it solves. It sits in an order of the president of an authority, not in Law no. 448/2006, and the statute, in Article 90^2(2)(a^2), goes on speaking about decisions „maintaining or altering the degree”, without saying in which direction. What was brought in by the signature of the president of an authority can be taken away the same way, one day, by an order published in an Official Gazette of Romania almost nobody reads. That is exactly what happened in March 2026, in the opposite direction.

The second thing that stands out when you put the deadlines side by side is the asymmetry. The person has 30 calendar days to challenge, roughly 21 or 22 working days, and going one day over means dismissal as out of time, with no examination of the merits. The administration, on the same file, has 5 working days to send the file on, 60 working days to settle it, 5 working days to send the decision and another 5 to communicate it to the person. That is 75 working days in total, around 105 calendar days, leaving public holidays aside. The ratio is roughly three and a half to one, and the asymmetry does not stop at the length: the person’s deadline has a penalty written into the act, the administration’s has none. If the 60 days pass, the rules provide for nothing, neither tacit approval nor a duty to explain the delay.

The same arithmetic, applied to the reassessment procedure, gives an even longer figure. Adding up the deadlines in the rules, from the registration of the inspection document to the communication of the decision to the person, you get 10 plus 3 plus 60 plus 15 plus 5 plus 5 working days, that is 98, to which 5 calendar days are added. Almost five months in the worst case. And if the Institute is brought in, the 30 working days in Article 21(1) are no longer capped inside the 60, as they were in the repealed rules, so they are added on: more than six months from the first document to the final answer. Throughout that time, the person is left with entitlements that may cease at the end of the procedure.

What should be changed

  • The ban on worsening the position of the person bringing the challenge should move into Law no. 448/2006. A principle that decides whether almost 886,000 adults dare to challenge or not cannot depend on an order that can be changed at any time. Moved into the statute, in Article 90^2, it would take Parliament to undo it.
  • Fixing the cross reference in Article 13(2). The deadline for completing the file has to run from the request made by the Higher Board, not from a moment already spent. Without that, incomplete files sit indefinitely, and the delay is borne by the person who brought the challenge.
  • Aligning Article 12 with Article 10(1) and with the statute. The text should say clearly that the 60 working days run from the registration of the challenge with the county board, that is from the day the person lodged it. Otherwise the statutory deadline can be stretched by every day of internal circulation.
  • Bringing back the clause that saves petitions. The old Article 8(3) treated as a challenge any application lodged in time with a public authority, if it showed dissatisfaction with the certificate. Removing it brings no administrative gain and turns a mistake about the address into a lost right, precisely for the group of people with the least access to legal advice.
  • Aligning the Institute’s deadline with the 15 days in the statute. Or, if 15 days are unrealistic, amending the statute. An order that contradicts the law on deadlines leaves the person without any benchmark.
  • A written consequence for exceeding the 60 working days. Either a duty to inform the person about the state of play, or provisional maintenance of the entitlements until the challenge is settled. Without something of that kind, the only route is litigation, meaning another six months.
  • A firm deadline for Article 8. The electronic issue of decisions, with a qualified electronic seal, is postponed to a date that will itself be set by an order. A postponement with no horizon is in fact a provision that can stay a dead letter for years.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 751 of 4 September 2026 16 pages PDF, 99 KB the act starts on page 2

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.