The 10 days for public information requests stand, and the CCR says exactly where the count starts

Anyone who sends a request for public information and gets an answer only on the thirtieth day has no ground on which to challenge the law: the Constitutional Court has said once again that the deadline is constitutional, and has explained, in the same breath, exactly how the days are counted. By Decision no. 103 of 5 February 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 697 of 21 August 2026, the Court rejected as unfounded the challenge brought against Article 7 of Law No 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest. This is the second time in short order that a ruling of the Court touches the transparency of public life itself, after the one in which the publication of financial interest statements was declared unconstitutional.

The case started from an ordinary dispute: a person asked for information of public interest, did not get what they wanted and ended up before the Bucharest Tribunal, Second Administrative and Tax Litigation Division. There they raised a plea of unconstitutionality against Articles 7, 12 and 22 of Law No 544/2001, plus Law No 51/1991 on national security, taken as a whole.

The complaints against Article 7 were specific. The author argued that the text does not say clearly what kind of reasons must be given, that it does not expressly provide that an incomplete or incorrect answer also counts as a refusal, that the phrase „or, as the case may be, within no more than 30 days” leaves room for foot-dragging, and that it is unclear whether the days are working days or calendar days. The Court answered point by point and kept the solution from its earlier rulings, Decision no. 719 of 2 November 2021 and Decision no. 279 of 28 May 2024.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the deadlines are confirmed. Article 7(1) of Law No 544/2001 stays in force exactly as it stands: public authorities and institutions answer in writing within 10 days or, as the case may be, within no more than 30 days of the request being registered, depending on the difficulty and complexity of the matter, the volume of documentary work and how urgent the request is. If identifying the information takes more than 10 days, the answer comes within a maximum of 30 days, provided the applicant is notified in writing about this within the first 10 days.

The second effect is the clarification of how the deadline is calculated, and this is the genuinely useful part for anyone making a request. The Court pointed out that, under Article 16(2) and (3) of the implementing rules approved by Government Decision No 123/2002, deadlines are calculated from the date the request is registered, neither the day on which the deadline starts running nor the day on which it falls due is counted, and if the last day is a non-working day, the deadline runs on to the first working day that follows.

The third effect concerns refusals. Article 7(2) remains unchanged: a refusal to communicate the requested information must be reasoned and communicated within 5 days of the petition being received. This is a separate deadline, shorter than the one for answering.

The fourth effect touches the electronic format. The Court expressly held that Article 7(3) does not impose an obligation on authorities to communicate information electronically, but refers only to the situation where the necessary technical conditions are met. Anyone asking for an answer by email cannot rely on this text as a right.

The fifth effect is procedural. The complaints against Article 12, which lists the information exempted from free access, Article 22(1), which governs the complaint to the administrative litigation division, and Law No 51/1991 as a whole were rejected as inadmissible. They were not examined on the merits, so nothing in the decision says that those texts are either sound or flawed.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In the letter of the law, nothing changes. Article 7 stays exactly as it was, and Law No 544/2001 continues to apply in the same form.

What changes is the standing of the argument. Until now, a dissatisfied applicant could try to argue in court that the 30-day deadline is too vague and therefore unconstitutional. Once this decision is published, that argument is off the table: the decision is final and generally binding, and courts can no longer set the text aside.

The second change is one of visibility. The rule for calculating deadlines sat in a government decision from 2002, which few applicants ever reach. It now appears in a ruling of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Gazette of Romania, so it can be invoked directly, with a precise reference.

The third change concerns the practice of raising pleas of unconstitutionality. The Court repeated, referring to Decision no. 1.313 of 4 October 2011 and Decision no. 785 of 16 June 2011, that such a plea must contain three elements: the contested text, the constitutional provision said to be breached, and an explanation of the contradiction between them. Merely listing articles of the Constitution is not a genuine complaint.

What does not change is the right to complain. Article 22(1) remains applicable: a person who considers themselves harmed may file a complaint with the administrative litigation division of the tribunal covering their home address or the seat of the authority, within 30 days of the expiry of the deadline set by Article 7.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions