Public Information Requests: Constitutional Court Confirms 10- and 30-Day Deadlines Stand

The Constitutional Court has rejected the challenge brought against the deadlines within which a public institution must respond to a request for information of public interest. Decision no. 755/2025, published in the Official Gazette of Romania almost eight months after it was handed down, confirms that Article 7 of Law no. 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest, the provision that sets the 10-day and, respectively, at most 30-day deadlines, is constitutional and can no longer be challenged on the same grounds.

The case originated with Dan Băzăvan, a citizen who sued several public authorities for failing to fully resolve his requests for information of public interest, submitted under Law no. 544/2001. In the two case files, joined at the Bucharest Tribunal, the claimant argued that Article 7 of the law is unclear: it allegedly does not specify whether the 30 days are working days or calendar days, it uses the vague term “urgency” without defining it, and incomplete or incorrect disclosure of information is not explicitly treated as a refusal. Besides Article 7, he also challenged Articles 12 (exceptions to free access), 21 (disciplinary liability of the official who refuses) and 22 para. (1) (the right to file a court complaint), but without concrete grounds for the latter three.

What it changes in practice

For anyone filing a request for public information, the decision changes nothing in practice: the deadlines remain those set out in the law, and the calculation method is the one established by the implementing rules (Government Decision no. 123/2002) — the deadline runs from the date the request is registered, neither the first nor the last day is counted, and if the last day falls on a non-working day, the deadline is extended to the next working day.

The real legal effect is different: it permanently removes the possibility of challenging Article 7 on constitutional grounds for lack of clarity in the deadlines, and courts will now be able to dismiss similar arguments directly, citing this decision. As for Articles 12, 21 and 22 para. (1), the Court did not rule on the merits of their constitutionality — it dismissed the challenge as inadmissible, because the claimant did not concretely explain what the alleged conflict with the constitutional provisions invoked actually consisted of. These three articles remain, in theory, open to a future, properly reasoned constitutional challenge. It is an increasingly frequent pattern at the Court: a few months earlier, through Decision no. 189/2026, it likewise confirmed the constitutionality of the emergency ordinances by which the Government postponed, between 2020 and 2023, the increase of the pension point value.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

• Nothing in the text: Articles 7, 12, 21 and 22 para. (1) of Law no. 544/2001 remain unchanged.
• One avenue of challenge is closed: the argument that “the response deadlines are not clear enough” can no longer be used as a constitutional challenge against Article 7 in other cases.
• Case law confirmed: the Court reaffirms, citing Decisions no. 719/2021 and no. 279/2024, the same solution it had previously given to similar complaints filed by the same claimant.
• Still open: the exceptions to free access (Art. 12), the disciplinary sanction for refusal (Art. 21) and the right to file a court complaint (Art. 22) were not reviewed on the merits, for lack of grounds in the challenge.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions

The same logic, of not interfering with the legislature’s choices on additional salary rights, is also found in the decision in which the Constitutional Court upheld the 2022 salary threshold for the risk allowance of veterinary health workers.