In brief

  • The Constitutional Court dismissed, as inadmissible, the challenge through which a citizen asked to shorten from 30 to 10 days the legal deadline for public authorities to answer petitions.
  • The 30-day deadline in Government Ordinance No. 27/2002 remains unchanged: the Court held that shortening it would mean amending the law, not reviewing its constitutionality, which exceeds its powers.
  • The Court also rejected the comparison with the 10-day deadline for paying the court stamp duty, treating it as a reference to another statute rather than to the Constitution.
Act: Decision CCR No. 128/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 639 of 3 August 2026
Delivered: 17 February 2026

The Constitutional Court dismissed, as inadmissible, the unconstitutionality objection through which a citizen from Bucharest essentially asked the constitutional judges to shorten to 10 days the 30-day deadline within which public authorities must answer citizens’ petitions. Decision No. 128/2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 639 of 3 August 2026, confirms that Articles 8, 9 and 15 of Government Ordinance No. 27/2002 on the settlement of petitions remain unchanged. In practice, nothing changes for citizens who file petitions with public institutions: the response deadline stays at 30 days, extendable by a further 15 (or 30, in the field of energy and natural gas).

The author of the objection, involved in a dispute with the National Consumer Protection Authority over an unresolved petition, argued that the 30-day deadline is too long compared with the 10 days a litigant has to pay the court stamp duty, and that public officials who fail to answer on time are never truly sanctioned. The Court dismissed all these arguments, showing that they actually call for amending the law, not reviewing its constitutionality.

What it changes in practice

For citizens who file petitions with public authorities and institutions, nothing changes: the legal response deadline stays at 30 days from registration of the petition, extendable on reasoned grounds by up to 15 days (30 days in the field of energy and natural gas), under Articles 8 and 9 of Government Ordinance No. 27/2002.

For those who would have wanted to challenge this deadline in court as unconstitutional, the decision clearly shows the limits of constitutional review: the Court cannot “shorten” a legal deadline just because a citizen considers it unreasonable, as that would mean substituting itself for Parliament. Likewise, comparing a deadline in one law with a deadline in another law (here, the stamp duty payment deadline in Government Emergency Ordinance No. 80/2013) does not, by itself, amount to an unconstitutionality argument, unless it is also tied to a constitutional text or principle.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

  • Nothing changes: the 30-day deadlines (extendable by 15 or 30 days) for answering petitions remain exactly as set in 2002.
  • The limits of constitutional review are clarified: the Court cannot shorten a legal deadline merely because a petitioner perceives it as unfair, without a genuine link to a constitutional provision.
  • The challenges to Articles 8 and 9 were dismissed as inadmissible, not as unfounded: an important distinction, showing they were not even examined on the merits, being regarded as disguised legislative-amendment proposals rather than genuine unconstitutionality objections.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Confirms the stability of the legal framework for handling petitions, without sudden changes that could have caused administrative confusion.
  • Clarifies, for the future, that mere dissatisfaction with the length of a legal deadline cannot, by itself, be grounds for unconstitutionality.
  • Explicitly reaffirms the obligation of public authorities to answer petitions within 30 days, a deadline that remains applicable and enforceable.

What remains a problem

  • The decision does not resolve petitioners’ underlying dissatisfaction: real sanctions against public officials who miss deadlines remain, in practice, rarely applied.
  • The 30-day deadline (potentially 45-60 days with an extension) remains considerably longer than other comparable administrative or judicial deadlines, even though this fact alone is not unconstitutional.
  • Citizens dissatisfied with a delayed response still have limited options: an appeal to a higher authority or a court action to compel a response, not a quick way to sanction the authority.

Practical advice

  1. If you have filed a petition with a public authority, you now know for certain that the legal response deadline is 30 days from registration, possibly extended on reasoned grounds by 15 days (30 days for energy and natural gas).
  2. If the deadline has passed without a response, you can complain to the head of the authority or bring an administrative court action to compel it to respond, under Law No. 554/2004.
  3. Do not expect a court-ordered reduction of the deadline: the Court made clear that changing its length is exclusively for Parliament, not the courts.
  4. If you are a public official responsible for petitions, note that missing the deadlines in Articles 8 and 9 remains a disciplinary offence under Article 15 of Government Ordinance No. 27/2002, sanctionable under Law No. 188/1999 or labour legislation.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide through Decision No. 128/2026?
It dismissed, as inadmissible, the unconstitutionality objection to Articles 8, 9 and 15 of Government Ordinance No. 27/2002 on the settlement of petitions.
Does the deadline for answering petitions change after this decision?
No. The deadline stays at 30 days from registration of the petition, extendable on reasoned grounds by 15 days (30 days in the field of energy and natural gas).
Why did the Court dismiss the objection as “inadmissible” rather than “unfounded”?
Because it considered that the author of the objection was not actually asking for a review of the text’s constitutionality, but for it to be amended (shortening the deadline from 30 to 10 days), which falls outside the Constitutional Court’s powers and is reserved exclusively for Parliament.
Can a deadline in one law be compared with a deadline in another law before the Constitutional Court?
Not unless that comparison is also tied to a constitutional text or principle. The Court held that a bare comparison between the 30-day deadline in Government Ordinance No. 27/2002 and the 10-day deadline for the court stamp duty, with no other link to a constitutional provision, does not amount to a genuine unconstitutionality argument.
What happens if a public authority fails to respond on time?
Missing the deadlines is a disciplinary offence under Article 15 of Government Ordinance No. 27/2002. The petitioner can also bring an administrative court action to compel the authority to respond.

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. 639 of 3 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 123 KB the act starts on page 4

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.