In brief

  • The Constitutional Court dismissed as unfounded the objection of a citizen who argued that the 30-day deadline for complaining about a refusal to receive information of public interest was unconstitutional.
  • The contested text, Article 22(1) final sentence of Law No. 544/2001, remains in force and is constitutional. Anyone who misses the deadline has their claim dismissed as out of time.
  • The Court’s reasoning: a procedural deadline is not a restriction on the right to information but a safeguard for legal certainty, because information disclosed late loses its currency and relevance. Decided unanimously.
Act: Constitutional Court Decision No. 763/2025
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 660 of 10 August 2026
In force from: 10 August 2026

If you ask a town hall or a ministry for public information and receive no answer at all, you have 30 days to go to court. One citizen argued that this deadline restricts a right the Constitution declares cannot be restricted. The Constitutional Court replied that he had confused the right itself with the procedure that protects it. Decision No. 763 of 11 December 2025 was published in the Official Gazette of Romania only on 10 August 2026, eight months after it was delivered. It is the second decision this year confirming the deadline architecture of Law No. 544/2001, after the one in which the Court upheld the 10-day and 30-day periods within which an institution must reply.

The author of the objection, David Matt-Ian, had reached the Bucharest Court of Appeal after the first-instance court dismissed his claim as out of time: he had filed the complaint after the 30-day deadline. On appeal he raised the constitutional objection, arguing that the very existence of this deadline makes it possible to plead lateness, and that lateness restricts a right which Article 31(1) of the Constitution declares cannot be restricted.

The mechanism of the law is straightforward. Under Article 7 of Law No. 544/2001, an institution must reply in writing to a request for information of public interest within 10 days or, where applicable, within no more than 30 days of the request being registered. If it fails to do so, the person who considers themselves wronged may complain to the administrative litigation division of the county court where they live or where the institution has its seat. The final sentence of Article 22(1), the contested text, adds: “The complaint shall be filed within 30 days of the expiry of the period laid down in Article 7.”

The representative of the Public Ministry asked for the objection to be dismissed, arguing that the text is a procedural rule adopted within the legislature’s margin of appreciation. The presidents of the two chambers of Parliament, the Government and the Ombudsman submitted no views.

What it changes in practice

The deadline stays unchanged and applies exactly as before. The decision changes nothing in practice: the 30 days run from the expiry of the institution’s own reply period, not from the moment the applicant realises no answer is coming. Anyone filing later risks dismissal for lateness, exactly as happened to the author of the objection.

The argument that “the right to information cannot be restricted” can no longer be used against the deadline. Being a final and generally binding decision, it closes this line of attack for all future cases. Courts may invoke it directly.

The Court reaffirmed two lines of case law. First: regulating the conditions for exercising a right, including by setting deadlines, is not a restriction but an effective way of preventing its abusive exercise to the detriment of other rights holders (Decision No. 103/2021, paragraph 37). Second: the right to information is not an absolute right, and the legislature has constitutional competence to set the conditions for exercising it (Decision No. 21/2018, paragraph 35).

The substantive justification is the currency of the information. The Court held that limiting the right of action in time does not restrict the right to information but safeguards legal certainty as regards the currency and relevance of the information to be disclosed, for both the applicant and the public institution. Information obtained years later no longer serves the purpose for which it was sought.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Nothing in the wording of the law changes. This is a dismissal, so Article 22(1) final sentence of Law No. 544/2001 remains in force as published in 2001, and court practice continues unchanged.

What changes is the standing of the legal argument. Until now, a claimant facing a plea of lateness could try to attack the deadline itself, invoking the unrestrictable character of the right to information under Article 31 of the Constitution. From publication onwards, that attempt has an explicit and binding constitutional answer.

The gap is also worth noting: the decision was delivered on 11 December 2025 and published on 10 August 2026. Eight months in which cases that might have relied on this benchmark proceeded without it.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It confirms a simple, predictable rule: 30 days from the expiry of the reply period, whatever the institution and whatever the information sought.
  • It protects the applicant too, not only the institution: information of public interest is worth having while it is current, and short deadlines force the situation to unblock quickly.
  • It reduces the number of objections raised with no real prospect and, with them, the number of cases stayed pending an answer from the Court.
  • It clarifies the relationship between a substantive right and a procedural rule, a frequent confusion in administrative litigation.

What remains a problem

  • Thirty days remains short for a person without legal training, especially as it runs from the moment the institution falls silent rather than from a document the applicant actually receives.
  • The decision says nothing about the situation where an institution replies formally but evasively or partially, in which case the starting point of the deadline is harder to pin down.
  • Publication eight months after delivery means the benchmark was missing precisely when it could have guided pending cases.
  • For the author of the objection, as for others in identical situations, dismissal for lateness stands: the right to obtain the information was extinguished on procedure, not on the merits.

Practical advice

  1. Note the date you filed the request. Everything is calculated from it: the institution has 10 days or, if the information is complex, no more than 30 days to reply in writing.
  2. From the day the institution’s period expires, your own 30 days start running. Do not wait for an answer that is not coming; the silence is itself the refusal you are challenging.
  3. File the complaint with the administrative litigation division of the county court where you live or where the institution has its seat. You may choose between the two.
  4. Keep proof that the request was registered (registration number, acknowledgement of receipt, proof of electronic submission). Without it you cannot show when the periods began.
  5. If you have missed the deadline, do not press the unconstitutionality argument. The Court has already answered, unanimously. It is more effective to restart with a fresh request, which triggers fresh deadlines.
  6. If you receive a partial or evasive answer, ask in writing for it to be completed, so that there is a document from which the deadlines can be calculated clearly, rather than relying on how silence is interpreted.

Frequently asked questions

How long do I have to challenge an institution’s refusal to give me public information?
Thirty days from the expiry of the period laid down in Article 7 of Law No. 544/2001, that is from the expiry of the 10 days or, where applicable, the 30 days within which the institution should have replied in writing.
Did the Court declare this deadline unconstitutional?
No. The Court dismissed the objection as unfounded and held that Article 22(1) final sentence of Law No. 544/2001 is constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised. The decision was unanimous.
Why is the deadline not a restriction on the right to information?
Because, according to the Court, regulating the conditions for exercising a right, including through deadlines, does not restrict the right but prevents its abusive exercise. Moreover, the right to information is not absolute, and the legislature may set the conditions for exercising it.
What happens if I file the complaint after the 30 days?
The court may uphold the plea of lateness and dismiss the claim without examining the merits, exactly what happened in the case that gave rise to this decision.
Where is the complaint filed?
With the administrative litigation division of the county court in whose territorial jurisdiction you live or in whose jurisdiction the public authority or institution has its seat.
Does the decision apply to cases already pending?
Yes. Constitutional Court decisions are final and generally binding from publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, so courts apply them in all pending cases.

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. 660 of 10 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 117 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.