In brief

  • Order of the Minister of Culture No. 3.180/2026 reopens, until 31 December 2027, the possibility for a museum, a research institute or a university without a diving authorisation of its own to carry out underwater archaeological research, working with a unit authorised by the Diving Centre. The ordinary rule being derogated from requires the organising institution to be itself authorised for activities involving divers.
  • The derogation is not new, it is the third. The first was granted in 2022 and expired on 2 November 2023, the second was granted in December 2023 and expired on 15 November 2024. Between the expiry of the second and the publication of this order, 665 days passed in which the exception simply did not exist, and the order says nothing about what happens to applications from that interval.
  • The stakes go beyond archaeology. Archaeological research may be carried out only on the basis of an authorisation from the Ministry of Culture, and until archaeological discharge is granted the land under investigation is protected as a site, under Article 5(9) and (14) of Government Ordinance No. 43/2000. For a port, a submarine cable, a pipeline or an offshore wind turbine foundation, a blockage in the authorisation turns directly into a blockage on site.
Act: Order of the Minister of Culture No. 3.180/2026 amending and supplementing the annex to Order of the Minister of Culture and National Heritage No. 2.562/2010 approving the Procedure for granting authorisations for archaeological research
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 773 of 11 September 2026
In force from: 11 September 2026, the date of publication

Public institutions without divers of their own can once again apply for an authorisation for underwater archaeological research, after almost two years in which there was no way for them to do so. Order of the Minister of Culture No. 3.180 of 7 September 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 773 of 11 September 2026, adds to the authorisation procedure a new paragraph allowing them to work with a unit authorised by the Diving Centre until 31 December 2027. It is the second order of the Ministry of Culture with a direct effect on construction sites that MonitorLegal has analysed this year, after the one that set firm deadlines for works on listed historic monument buildings.

The procedure being amended is the annex to Order of the Minister of Culture and National Heritage No. 2.562/2010, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 768 of 17 November 2010. It sets out which documents are filed, where, and within what time an answer is given for each of the archaeological research authorisations: systematic, preventive, supervision, diagnostic, and for the use of metal detectors.

The chapter on underwater cultural heritage was added only in 2022, by Order of the Minister of Culture No. 3.444/2022. Underwater cultural heritage means, in the definition of the UNESCO Convention accepted by Romania through Law No. 99/2007, traces of human existence of a cultural, historical or archaeological character that have lain under water, partially or totally, for more than 100 years. In practice: wrecks, drowned harbours, settlements covered by reservoirs, ship cargoes on the Black Sea continental shelf.

The substantive rule introduced at that time is demanding. Article 182(3) of the procedure provides that, for underwater research involving diving, the organising institution means the public museum, research or higher education institution authorised to carry out activities with divers by the Diving Centre, a specialist structure within the Ministry of National Defence. In other words, having archaeologists is not enough; you also need a military diving authorisation in the institution’s name.

What the order changes, point by point

The order has three points, all in Article I, plus an Article II saying only that it is published in the Official Gazette of Romania.

Point 2 is the one that does the work. Article 183 gains a new paragraph, (12): until 31 December 2027, by way of derogation from Article 182(3), organising institutions that are not authorised to carry out activities with divers may work with a unit authorised by the Diving Centre for prospecting, scientific research and underwater archaeology, or for other underwater activities in support of underwater archaeology. The text also gives examples of such activities: investigating the underwater environment, collecting and recording information about structures, installations, ecosystems or the bed of the water body.

Point 3 aligns the consequence. Article 183(2) is rewritten so as to refer to paragraph (12), and keeps the limit: through the collaboration, the organising institution entrusts to the authorised unit only the activities supporting the research, by carrying out the underwater work. The archaeological research remains, in law, that of the organising institution.

Point 1 aligns the document in the file. Article 182(5)(a) requires the institution to file, together with the documentation, a statement on its own responsibility that it meets one of the conditions: either it is itself authorised, under paragraph (3), or it falls within the derogation. The reference in the statement moves from paragraph (11) to paragraph (12).

The signature on the act is that of the Minister of Culture, Demeter András István, and the act is dated 7 September 2026. Four days passed between signature and publication.

What it changes in practice

The new wording applies from 11 September 2026, the date of publication. Article II does not provide for a later date, and Article 12(3) of Law No. 24/2000 provides that the normative acts referred to in Article 11(1), with the exception of laws and ordinances, enter into force on the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Romania unless a later date is provided for in their text. The three-day rule readers associate with entry into force applies to laws and to ordinances issued under a special enabling law, not to ministerial orders.

The first effect is that an application filed after 11 September 2026 can contain a statement referring to a provision in force. Until that day, the form called for a statement on meeting the conditions in paragraph (3) or in Article 183(11), and the second of these had expired on 15 November 2024. Anyone not authorised by the Diving Centre had nothing to declare.

The second effect concerns preventive research, the kind carried out ahead of an investment. Under Article 2(9) of Government Ordinance No. 43/2000, prior archaeological research is mandatory in all cases where environmental permits are issued for areas with archaeological heritage, and its costs fall, under paragraph (11) of the same article, on the investor. For works in water, this research needs an organising institution able to carry it out lawfully, and with the exception reopened the list of institutions that can be engaged as organiser widens again.

The third effect is the one that interests a builder. Archaeological discharge is, in the definition in Article 5(2) of the same ordinance, the procedure confirming that land in which archaeological heritage has been identified may be returned to ordinary human use, and the certificate that records it is the administrative act by which the protection regime imposed earlier is lifted. Paragraph (14) says plainly that, until discharge, the land investigated is protected as an archaeological site, and paragraph (15) ties the authorisation of construction or demolition works in areas with archaeological heritage to the endorsement of the Ministry of Culture. The certificate is issued by the ministry’s deconcentrated services, that is by the county directorates for culture, under Article 13(d), and for investments, with the exception of private dwellings outside areas of priority archaeological interest, the research report goes to the National Archaeology Commission. Certificates issued without its approval are void by operation of law, under Article 6(6).

The fourth effect is the one that is missing: transitional provisions. Nothing is said about an application filed in August 2026 and decided by the specialist directorate in September, nor about research begun between 15 November 2024 and 10 September 2026 in collaboration with an authorised unit, with no basis in the text. Since the order does not operate retroactively, those situations are left to be assessed case by case.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Comparison with the earlier versions shows that what we have here is not a new measure but the third repetition of the same measure, with a third deadline.

Order of the Minister of Culture No. 3.444 of 1 November 2022, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 1.063 of 2 November 2022, introduced into the procedure point IV, „Authorisation of archaeological research on underwater cultural heritage”, comprising Articles 182 to 184. It also wrote the derogation, in Article 183(1), with a deadline of 2 November 2023. That window ran for exactly 365 days from publication.

A year later, Order of the Minister of Culture No. 3.621 of 5 December 2023, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 1.125 of 13 December 2023, repeated the operation: it added paragraph (11), with a deadline of 15 November 2024, and moved onto it the references in Article 182(5)(a) and in Article 183(2). That order, however, appeared 41 days after the first derogation had expired, and the window it opened lasted 338 days.

Order No. 3.180/2026 does exactly what the 2023 one did, with three differences. The deadline is longer, 476 days from publication to 31 December 2027. The delay is far greater, 665 days from the expiry of the previous derogation. And the preamble, unlike that of the 2022 order, no longer invokes Article 7(1) of the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, but only the bases in Government Ordinance No. 43/2000 and in Government Decision No. 90/2010.

One thing has not changed: neither of the two expired paragraphs has been repealed. After this order, Article 183 contains three paragraphs saying almost the same thing, paragraph (1) with a 2023 deadline, paragraph (11) with a 2024 deadline and paragraph (12) with a 2027 deadline, plus a paragraph (2) referring only to the last of them.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It repairs a real blockage. Since 15 November 2024, a public institution without a diving authorisation of its own had no basis on which to file an application for underwater research.
  • The deadline is the most generous of the three, 476 days from publication, against 365 in 2022 and 338 in 2023.
  • The internal alignment is complete. The order amends in the same text both the statement under Article 182(5)(a) and the reference in Article 183(2), so the applicant is not left with a document pointing to an expired paragraph.
  • The substantive requirement stays. The partner unit still has to be authorised by the Diving Centre, and what may be entrusted to it is limited to the supporting underwater activities, not to the archaeological research itself.
  • County museums and universities become possible organisers again for the preventive research required for works in water, without having to maintain a diving team of their own.

What remains a problem

  • It does not cover the gap. The 665 days without a derogation are left untreated, and the order contains no transitional provision for applications filed or research begun in that interval.
  • It is the third extension of a measure called an exception. Of the 1,885 days running from 2 November 2022 to 31 December 2027, the derogation covers 1,179, while 706 remain uncovered.
  • Paragraphs (1) and (11), with deadlines that expired in 2023 and 2024, stay in the text. Anyone opening Article 183 reads three near-identical paragraphs and has to work out unaided which of them still produces effects.
  • The date of 31 December 2027 is a fixed date, not a mechanism. Nothing in the act links the expiry of the derogation to the number of institutions that have obtained authorisation in the meantime, so nothing stands in the way of a fourth extension, once again late.
  • The act gives no way of finding out how many public museum, research or higher education institutions have obtained their own authorisation from the Diving Centre in the meantime, which is precisely the figure that would justify or undermine the extension.

Practical advice

  1. If your institution is not authorised by the Diving Centre, check your partner’s authorisation first. The derogation works only with a unit authorised by the Diving Centre itself for prospecting, scientific research and underwater archaeology, or for other underwater activities in support of archaeology.
  2. Update the statement on your own responsibility. From 11 September 2026 it has to refer to Article 183(12), not to paragraph (11). An old form template refers to an expired paragraph.
  3. Do not confuse collaboration with subcontracting the research. Article 183(2) allows you to entrust to the authorised unit only the supporting underwater activities. The scientific responsibility and the authorisation stay with the organising institution.
  4. Notify the Diving Centre before the research begins. Article 182(5)(c) requires you to communicate the estimated period, the location and the personnel with duties in the diving activity.
  5. Prepare the scientific project in the form required by the annex to the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, under Article 182(4). Without it the file is incomplete, and the time limit for a decision does not even start to run.
  6. As an investor, place the archaeological research in the project schedule, not at the end of it. The costs fall on the investor, and an archaeological discharge certificate issued without the approval of the National Archaeology Commission is void by operation of law.
  7. Work out the procedural deadlines before you promise a start date for the works. The ministry has 15 calendar days to tell you what is missing from the file, you have 10 days to complete it, on pain of rejection, and the decision comes within a maximum of 30 calendar days from the file being complete.

Frequently asked questions

Who exactly does this order concern?
Public museum, research or higher education institutions that want to carry out underwater archaeological research and are not authorised to carry out activities with divers. Indirectly it also concerns investors who need such research for works in water: ports, cables, pipelines, bridges, offshore wind turbine foundations, works on reservoirs.
What is archaeological discharge and why does it matter for a construction site?
It is the procedure confirming that land in which archaeological heritage has been identified may be returned to ordinary human use, under Article 5(2) of Government Ordinance No. 43/2000. Until then, the land investigated is protected as an archaeological site, under paragraph (14), and construction works in areas with archaeological heritage are authorised only on the basis of an endorsement from the Ministry of Culture, under paragraph (15). Without the certificate, the site does not start.
From when does it apply?
From 11 September 2026, the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Romania. The order does not provide for a later date, and Article 12(3) of Law No. 24/2000 establishes that ministerial orders enter into force on publication unless they say otherwise.
What happens to an application filed before 11 September 2026?
The order does not say. It contains no transitional provisions and does not operate retroactively. An application filed in August 2026 contained a statement referring to Article 183(11), which expired on 15 November 2024. The safest course is to file a new statement referring to paragraph (12).
Why is the same exception being extended for the third time?
Because the substantive rule requires a diving authorisation issued by a structure of the Ministry of National Defence in the institution’s name, and cultural institutions have not obtained it at the pace assumed in 2022. The first derogation ran until 2 November 2023, the second until 15 November 2024, the third runs until 31 December 2027. The act does not explain why, and the figures that would explain it are not published alongside it.
Where can I find the full text of the order?
In the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No. 773 of 11 September 2026, at page 5. The text is also reproduced in full in this article, in the section with the original text of the act.

Editorial analysis

The order solves a real problem and solves it correctly in technical terms. Its three points hang together: the new paragraph is introduced, the reference in the statement under Article 182(5)(a) is moved onto it, and Article 183(2) is rewritten, so that anyone reading the procedure from one end to the other is not left with a dead reference. That is more than many amending orders manage, where the alignment is forgotten precisely on the document the applicant has to complete.

The problem is not what the act says but its timing. The derogation was written in 2022 with a deadline of 2 November 2023 and was extended only on 13 December 2023, 41 days after expiry. The second time the deadline was 15 November 2024, and the extension comes now, 665 days later. Added up, from 2 November 2022 to 31 December 2027 there are 1,885 days, of which the exception covers 1,179 and leaves 706 uncovered. Put differently, for more than a third of the period the Ministry of Culture treats as transitional, the transition did not exist in law. This is not an isolated slip but a pattern that repeats identically, and each time the one who pays is not the ministry but the institution that prepared an application and had nothing to declare.

The second observation comes from setting side by side the deadlines within the same procedure, not from reading the order. Article 16(2) gives the specialist directorate 15 calendar days merely to establish that the file is incomplete and to tell the applicant so. Article 16(3) gives the applicant 10 days to file what is requested, and paragraph (4) penalises delay with rejection of the application. Article 17(1) adds a maximum of 30 calendar days from a complete file to the decision. The administration therefore takes up to 45 days, four and a half times more than the 10 it allows the applicant, and the only penalty for delay in the procedure falls on the applicant. The same ratio appears in appeals: 5 days for the dissatisfied party, 10 days for the committee reviewing the appeal.

The third observation concerns the age of the procedure. The annex to Order No. 2.562/2010 is, on the date this order is published, 5,777 days old, that is 15 years and almost 10 months, and it has been amended four times before, the legislation portal holding consolidated versions dated 3 May 2011, 19 March 2021, 2 November 2022 and 13 December 2023. On top of a text written for research on land, a chapter on diving was added in 2022, and on top of that three derogating paragraphs are now stacked, two of them expired and none repealed. It is not a problem of legality but one of readability, and it is paid for at the counter, by whoever has to put the file together without getting the reference wrong.

What should be changed

  • Express repeal of Article 183(1) and (11). These are paragraphs with deadlines that expired in 2023 and 2024, read today only by those looking for the mistake. Effect: Article 183 would have a single derogating text, and the risk of an applicant citing the wrong paragraph in the statement would disappear.
  • Replacing the fixed date with a verifiable condition. Instead of „until 31 December 2027”, the derogation could run until the number of public institutions authorised by the Diving Centre reaches an announced threshold, with an annual assessment published. Effect: extension would stop being an administrative surprise and would become a decision argued with figures.
  • A transitional provision for pending applications. A single sentence stating that statements filed before entry into force are deemed given under paragraph (12) and that no redrafting of the documentation is required. Effect: applications within the 30-day decision period are not rejected over a reference that changed between filing and decision.
  • A reactivation clause, for the case where the extension is late again. The derogation could be written as applicable until the institution obtains its own authorisation, but no later than a set date, with effect resuming by operation of law at each extension. Effect: a gap like the 665-day one would no longer leave either filed applications or research already under way without a legal basis.
  • Rebalancing the deadlines in Articles 16 and 17 of the procedure. Ten days to complete a file with technical drawings, a site plan and an orthophoto plan, against 15 days in which the administration merely flags what is missing, is a ratio that is hard to defend. Effect: fewer rejections on formal grounds and fewer applications restarted from scratch.
  • Republication of the procedure in consolidated form. After five amendments in almost 16 years, the text would deserve republication with clean numbering, instead of a string of articles carrying superscripts. Effect: the applicant, the archaeologist and the investor read the same text, and references in the forms no longer have to be checked against four different acts.

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. 773 of 11 September 2026 16 pages PDF, 103 KB the act starts on page 5

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.