Law no. 554 of 2 December 2004 on administrative litigation
EMITENT
PARLAMENTUL
Published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 1154 of 7 December 2004
Note
Admissions Decision: RIL no. 22/2020, published in the Official Monitor no. 1208 on December 10, 2020:

In public function disputes aimed at compelling the employer to pay unpaid salary rights, as well as when the employer has not issued an administrative act or the act has not been notified to the public official, he may directly approach the administrative court without the need to previously request the employer to grant the same rights before filing a lawsuit.

The Parliament of Romania enacts this Law.

Chapter I General Provisions

Article 1

Subjects of referral to the court
(As amended by art. I para. 1 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, No. 510 of July 30, 2007, the marginal title of art. 1 was modified.)
(1) Any person who considers themselves harmed in a right or legitimate interest by a public authority, through an administrative act or through the failure to resolve a request within the legal term, may appeal to the competent administrative court of law, for the cancellation of the act, the recognition of the claimed right or legitimate interest and the repair of the damage caused to them. The legitimate interest can be both private and public.
Note
Admissions Decision: RIL No. 8/2020, published in the Official Monitor No. 580 on July 2, 2020:

In the unitary interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 1 (1), Article 2 (1) lit. a), r) and s), and Article 8 (1^1) and (1^2) of Law No. 554/2004 on administrative litigation, as subsequently amended and supplemented, it is established that:

In order to exercise the legality control over administrative acts at the request of associations, as social bodies concerned, the invocation of the legitimate public interest must be subsidiary to the invocation of a legitimate private interest, the latter resulting from the direct link between the administrative act subject to legality control and the direct purpose and objectives of the association, according to its statute.
(2) The person harmed in a right or legitimate interest by an individual administrative act addressed to another legal person may appeal to the administrative court.
(3) The Ombudsman, following the inspection carried out in accordance with its organic law, if it considers that the illegality of the act or the refusal of the administrative authority to carry out its legal duties cannot be removed except through justice, may refer the case to the competent administrative court of the petitioner's domicile. The petitioner automatically acquires the status of claimant and is cited in this capacity. If the petitioner does not assume the action brought by the Ombudsman at the first hearing, the administrative court shall dismiss the claim.
(3) Article 1 para. (3) was amended by Article 1 para. 2 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007. )
(4) The Public Ministry, when, as a result of the exercise of the powers provided for in its organic law, it considers that the violations of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of persons are due to the existence of unilateral individual administrative acts of public authorities issued with excess of power, with their prior agreement, shall refer the case to the administrative court of the domicile of the natural person or the registered office of the legal person harmed. The petitioner automatically acquires the status of claimant and shall be cited in this capacity.
(4) The provisions of Article 1 shall enter into force on the date of publication of this Law in the Official Gazette.
(5) When the Public Ministry considers that the issuance of an administrative normative act injures a legitimate public interest, it shall refer the case to the competent administrative court at the seat of the issuing public authority.
(5) The provisions of Article 1 shall enter into force on the date of publication of this Law.
(6) The public authority that issued an unlawful unilateral administrative act may request the court to annul it, in the situation where the act can no longer be revoked because it has entered the civil circuit and has produced legal effects. In the case of the admission of the action, the court shall rule, if it has been seized by the claim for summons, and on the validity of the legal acts concluded on the basis of the unlawful administrative act, as well as on the legal effects produced by them. The action may be introduced within one year from the date of issuance of the act.
(6) Article 1 para. (6) was amended by Article 1 para. 2 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007.
Note
Decision to reject: HP No. 74/2018, published in the Official Monitor No. 25 of January 10, 2019.
(7) A person harmed in their rights or legitimate interests by unconstitutional government ordinances or provisions of ordinances may appeal to the administrative court, under the terms of this law.
(7) Article 1 para. (7) was amended by Article 1 para. 2 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007.
(8) The Prefect, the National Agency of Public Servants and any subject of public law may bring administrative litigation proceedings, under the conditions of this Law and of the special laws.
(8) Article 1 para. (8) was amended by Article 1 para. 2 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007. )
Note
Decision to admit: HP no. 12/2015, published in the Official Monitor no. 773 of 16 October 2015:

Under the terms of the Local Public Administration Law no. 215/2001, as republished, with subsequent amendments and supplements, and the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004, with subsequent amendments and supplements, the administrative-territorial unit, through its executive authority, respectively the mayor, does not have the right to appeal to the administrative litigation court the decisions adopted by its deliberative authority, respectively the local council or, as the case may be, the General Council of the Municipality of Bucharest.
(9) In the settlement of administrative litigation, the representative of the Public Ministry may participate, at any stage of the process, whenever he considers it necessary for the defense of the legal order, the rights and freedoms of citizens.
(9) The provisions of Article 1 shall enter into force on the date of publication of this Law in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.

Article 2

The meaning of certain terms
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
a) injured party - any person entitled to a right or legitimate interest, harmed by a public authority through an administrative act or through the failure to solve a request within the legal term; in the sense of this law, the injured party is assimilated to a group of physical persons, without legal personality, entitled to subjective rights or legitimate private interests, as well as social bodies that invoke harm through the attacked administrative act, either of a legitimate public interest or of the rights and legitimate interests of certain physical persons;
Note
Admissions Decision: RIL No. 8/2020, published in the Official Monitor No. 580 on July 2, 2020:

b) public authority - any state body or administrative-territorial unit which acts, in a public power regime, for the satisfaction of a legitimate public interest; are assimilated to public authorities, within the meaning of this law, the legal persons of private law which, according to the law, have obtained the status of public utility or are authorized to provide a public service, in a public power regime;
Note
Decision to admit: HP no. 28/2017, published in the Official Monitor no. 378 of 22 May 2017:

The concept of "public authority", as defined by art. 2 para. (1) lit. b) of Law no. 554/2004 on administrative litigation, with subsequent amendments and supplements, is not similar to that of "public institution", as provided for by art. 2 para. (1) point 39 of Law no. 273/2006 on local finance, with subsequent amendments and supplements.

c) administrative act - a unilateral act with individual or normative character issued by a public authority, in a public power regime, with a view to organizing the execution of the law or the concrete execution of the law, which gives rise to, modifies or extinguishes legal relations;
(As of 02-08-2018, letter c) of paragraph (1), Article 2, Chapter I was amended by point 1, Article I of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
Note
Decision to admit: HP No. 11/2015, published in the Official Monitor No. 501 of 8 July 2015:

In interpreting the provisions of Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Law No. 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 63 (5) (e) and Article 115 (2) of the Local Public Administration Law No. 215/2001, as republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and Article 19 (1) (a) and (e) of Law No. 340/2004 on the Prefect and the Prefect's Institution, as republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and Article 123 (5) of the Constitution, the Prefect is recognized the right to appeal to the administrative court administrative acts issued by local public administration authorities, within the meaning of the provisions of Article 2 (1) (c) of the Administrative Litigation Law No. 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented.

Decision to admit: RIL no. 28/2021, published in the Official Monitor no. 95 of January 31, 2022:

c^1) are assimilated to administrative acts, within the meaning of this law, and the contracts concluded by public authorities which have as their object the valorization of public property, the execution of works of public interest, the provision of public services, public procurement; by special laws, other categories of administrative contracts can also be provided;
(As of 02-08-2018, paragraph (1) of Article 2, Chapter I was supplemented by point 2, Article I of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
d) administrative-jurisdictional act - the act issued by an administrative authority empowered, by organic law, with special administrative jurisdiction;
e) special administrative jurisdiction - the activity carried out by an administrative authority which, according to a special organic law on the matter, has the competence to settle a conflict regarding an administrative act, after a procedure based on the principles of adversarial procedure, ensuring the right to defence and the independence of the administrative-jurisdictional activity;
f) administrative litigation - the activity of resolving by the competent administrative litigation courts according to the organic law of the lawsuits in which at least one of the parties is a public authority, and the conflict arose either from the issuance or conclusion, as the case may be, of an administrative act, within the meaning of this law, or from the failure to resolve within the legal term or from the unjustified refusal to resolve a request regarding a right or legitimate interest;
Note
Decision to admit: RIL no. 13/2015, published in the Official Monitor no. 690 on September 11, 2015:

In the interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 2 para. (1) lit. f) and art. 10 of the Law on administrative litigation no. 554/2004, with the subsequent modifications and additions, respectively art. 94 and art. 95 of the Code of civil procedure, the disputes having as object actions through which a general directorate of social assistance and child protection obliges a county or local council or another general directorate of social assistance and child protection to bear the maintenance expenses for persons who benefit from protection measures provided by Law no. 448/2006 on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, republished, with the subsequent modifications and additions, and Law no. 272/2004 on the protection and promotion of the rights of the child, republished, with the subsequent modifications and additions, are within the competence of the administrative courts.

Decision to admit: RIL no. 16/2016, published in the Official Monitor no. 110 on February 9, 2017:

In the unitary interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 1, art. 231 and art. 278 para. (2) of Law no. 53/2003 - Labor Code, republished, with subsequent modifications and completions, art. 55 of Law no. 393/2004 on the status of elected local officials, with subsequent modifications and completions, art. 2 para. (1) lit. f) of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004, with subsequent modifications and completions, and art. 109 of Law no. 188/1999 on the status of civil servants, republished, with subsequent modifications and completions:

The provisions of the Labor Code apply to the legal relationships between the mayor/deputy mayor and the administrative-territorial unit, if special laws do not contain specific provisions, including after the end of the mandates.

Decision to admit: RIL no. 28/2021, published in the Official Monitor no. 95 of January 31, 2022:

g) administrative court instance, hereinafter referred to as the court - the Administrative and Fiscal Section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Administrative and Fiscal Sections of the Courts of Appeal and the Administrative and Fiscal Tribunals;
h) failure to resolve a request within the legal deadline - the fact of not responding to the applicant within 30 days of registering the request, if the law does not provide for another deadline;
i) refusal to unjustifiably solve a request - the explicit expression, with excess of power, of the will not to solve the request of a person; it is assimilated to the unjustified refusal also the failure to enforce the administrative act issued as a result of the favorable solution of the request or, as the case may be, of the prior complaint;
Note
Decision to admit: RIL no. 28/2021, published in the Official Monitor no. 95 of January 31, 2022:

j) preliminary complaint - the request to re-examine an individual or normative administrative act by the issuing public authority or the hierarchically superior authority, as the case may be, with a view to its revocation or amendment;
k) acts concerning relations with Parliament - acts issued by a public authority, in the exercise of its powers, provided for by the Constitution or an organic law, in political relations with Parliament;
l) military command act - the administrative act regarding the strictly military issues of the activity within the armed forces, specific to military organization, which implies the right of commanders to give orders to subordinates in matters relating to the leadership of the troop, in peacetime or wartime or, as the case may be, to the performance of military service;
m) public service - organised activity or, where appropriate, activity authorised by a public authority, with the aim of meeting a legitimate public interest;
n) abuse of power - the exercise of the right of appreciation of public authorities by violating the limits of competence provided by law or by violating the rights and freedoms of citizens;
) injured right - any right provided by the Constitution, by law or by another normative act, which is affected by an administrative act;
p) private legitimate interest - the possibility of claiming a certain conduct, in consideration of the realization of a future and foreseeable subjective right, prefigured;
Legitimate public interest - the interest that aims at the rule of law and constitutional democracy, the guarantee of fundamental rights, freedoms and duties of citizens, the satisfaction of community needs, the realization of the competence of public authorities;
Note
Admissions Decision: RIL No. 8/2020, published in the Official Monitor No. 580 on July 2, 2020:

Social interest organizations - non-governmental structures, trade unions, associations, foundations and the like, whose purpose is to protect the rights of various categories of citizens or, as the case may be, the proper functioning of administrative public services.
Note
Admissions Decision: RIL No. 8/2020, published in the Official Monitor No. 580 on July 2, 2020:

imminent damage - future and foreseeable material harm or, as the case may be, serious foreseeable disruption of the functioning of a public authority or public service;
t) well-founded cases - the circumstances related to the facts and the law, which are likely to create a serious doubt as to the legality of the administrative act;
) execution instance - the instance that settled the substance of the administrative litigation dispute.
(1) Article 2 para. (1) was amended by Article I para. 3 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007.
Note
By DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT No. 459 of 16 September 2014, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 712 of 30 September 2014, the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. 8 para. (1) in relation to art. 2 para. (1) lit. c) first sentence of the Law on administrative litigation No. 554/2004 was admitted, it being found that the provisions of art. 8 para. (1) in relation to art. 2 para. (1) lit. c) first sentence of the Law on administrative litigation No. 554/2004 are constitutional insofar as they are interpreted in the sense that the President's decrees on the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court are excluded from the scope of judicial control as regards the verification of the fulfillment of the condition of "high professional competence".

Therefore, according to art. 147 para. (1) of the ROMANIAN CONSTITUTION republished in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE no. 767 of 31 October 2003, the provisions of laws and ordinances in force, as well as those of regulations, found to be unconstitutional, cease their legal effects 45 days after the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court, if, within this period, Parliament or the Government, as the case may be, do not bring the unconstitutional provisions into compliance with the provisions of the Constitution. During this period, the provisions found to be unconstitutional are suspended ipso jure.

In conclusion, in the period 30 September 2014-14 November 2014, the provisions of art. 8 para. (1) referred to art. 2 para. (1) lit. c) first sentence of the Law on administrative litigation no. 554/2004 insofar as the President's decrees on the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court are not excluded from the scope of judicial control as regards the verification of the condition of "high professional competence" have been suspended ipso jure, ceasing their legal effects as of 15 November 2014, since the legislator has not intervened to amend the provisions challenged.
(2) Unilateral administrative acts and unjustified refusal to resolve a request regarding a right or legitimate interest or, as the case may be, failure to respond to the applicant within the legal term are assimilated.
Note
Decision to admit: HP no. 26/2016, published in the Official Monitor no. 996 of 12 December 2016:

The provisions of Article 3 "Administrative Protection" of the Law on Administrative Litigation No. 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented, are interpreted to mean that the prefect cannot challenge before the administrative courts the refusal [as assimilated to an administrative act, according to the provisions of Article 2 para. (2) of Law No. 554/2004] of the local council to include on the agenda of the meeting and to take note of the premature termination of the term of office of a local councilor, refused at the request of the prefect addressed in accordance with the powers regulated by the provisions of Article 19 para. (1) lit. a) and e) of Law No. 340/2004 on the prefect and the prefectural institution, as republished, with subsequent amendments and supplements.

Decision to admit: RIL no. 28/2021, published in the Official Monitor no. 95 of January 31, 2022:

Article 3

Administrative protection
(1) The Prefect may directly challenge before the administrative court the acts issued by the local public administration authorities, if he considers them illegal; the action is formulated within the time limit provided for in art. 11 para. (1), which begins to run from the moment of communication of the act to the prefect and under the conditions provided for by this law. The action brought by the prefect is exempt from stamp duty.
(1) The provisions of this Law shall apply to the management of public funds and resources, as well as to the management of funds and resources from other sources, in accordance with the law.
(2) The National Agency of Public Servants may appeal to the administrative court acts of central and local public authorities which infringe the legislation on the public service, under the terms of this Act and of Law No. 188/1999 on the Statute of Public Servants, as republished.
(3) Pending the resolution of the case, the act attacked according to para. (1) is suspended by right.
(As of 05-07-2019, paragraph (3) of Article 3, Chapter I was amended by Article 633, PART X of the EMERGENCY ORDINANCE no. 57 of July 3rd, 2019, published in the OFFICIAL MONITOR no. 555 of 05 July 2019 )
Note
Decision to admit: HP No. 11/2015, published in the Official Monitor No. 501 of 8 July 2015:

Decision to admit: HP no. 26/2016, published in the Official Monitor no. 996 of 12 December 2016:

Article 4

Illegality Exception
(1) The legality of an individual administrative act, regardless of the date of its issuance, can be investigated at any time during a trial, through an exception, ex officio or at the request of the interested party.
Note
Decision to admit: RIL no. 9/2021, published in the Official Monitor no. 976 on October 13, 2021:

In the unitary interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 4 para. (1) of the Law on administrative litigation no. 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the exception of illegality may also be invoked in relation to individual administrative acts adopted or issued prior to the entry into force of Law no. 554/2004.
(2) The court seised of the merits of the case and before which the exception of illegality has been raised, finding that the individual administrative act depends on the resolution of the case on the merits, is competent to rule on the exception, either by an interlocutory order or by the judgment it will deliver in the case. In the event that the court rules on the exception of illegality by interlocutory order, it may be appealed together with the merits.
(3) In the event that it finds the administrative act of individual character to be illegal, the court before which the exception of illegality has been invoked shall decide the case, without regard to the act whose illegality has been established.
(4) Administrative acts with normative character cannot be the subject of an exception of illegality. The judicial control of administrative acts with normative character is exercised by the administrative litigation court within the action for annulment, under the conditions provided for in this law.

(As amended by Article 54, paragraph 1 of Law No. 76 of May 24, 2012, published in the Official Monitor No. 365 of May 30, 2012)
Note
Decision to admit: HP no. 36/2016, published in the Official Monitor no. 104 of 7 February 2017:

The provisions of art. 4 of the Law no. 554/2004 on the administrative litigation, with subsequent amendments and supplements, allow the invocation of the exception of illegality of an individual administrative act, directly in the appeal.

Article 5

Documents not subject to control and the limits of control
(1) Cannot be challenged in administrative litigation:
a) administrative acts of public authorities concerning their relations with Parliament;
b) military command acts.
(2) Administrative acts for which the modification or repeal is provided for by organic law cannot be challenged through administrative litigation.
Note
Decision to admit: RIL no. 28/2021, published in the Official Monitor no. 95 of January 31, 2022:

In the unitary interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 58 para. (5) of Law no. 119/1996 on civil status acts, republished, with subsequent modifications and additions, art. 94 pct. 1 lit. b) of Law no. 134/2010 on the Civil Procedure Code, republished, with subsequent modifications and additions (both in the previous version of Law no. 310/2018 and in the subsequent version of this law), art. 100 para. (2) and (4) of Law no. 287/2009 on the Civil Code, art. 2 para. (1) lit. c), f) and i) and para. (2) and art. 5 para. (2) of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004, with subsequent modifications and additions, the material procedural competence to rule in the first instance on the applications for annulment/objections lodged against the decisions issued by mayors in the settlement of applications for rectification of civil status acts falls to the district courts.
(3) In disputes concerning administrative acts issued for the implementation of the regime of the state of war, siege or emergency, those concerning national defense and security or those issued to restore public order, as well as to eliminate the consequences of natural disasters, epidemics and epizootics, the provisions of Article 14 do not apply.
(As amended by Article I, point 3 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
(4) Repealed.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (4) of Article 5, Chapter I was repealed by Article I, Point 4 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)

Article 6

Administrative-Judicial Acts
(1) Special administrative jurisdictions are optional and free.
(2) Administrative acts which, under the organic law, are subject to special administrative jurisdiction may be appealed to the administrative court, in compliance with the provisions of Article 7 para. (1), if the party chooses not to pursue the administrative-jurisdictional procedure.
(2) Article 6 para. (2) was amended by Article 1 para. 6 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007. )
(3) The administrative-jurisdictional act for which, by special organic law, a remedy before another special administrative jurisdiction is provided may be directly attacked before the administrative litigation court, within 15 days of notification, if the party wishes to waive the administrative-jurisdictional remedy.
(3) The provisions of Article 6 shall not apply to the following:
(4) If the party that has opted for special administrative jurisdiction or for an appeal to another administrative-judicial body wishes to waive this right during the course of the proceedings, it shall notify the relevant administrative-judicial body of its decision to waive. The party shall bring the case before the administrative court within 15 days of such notification. In this case, the prior administrative procedure provided for in Article 7 shall no longer be carried out.
(4) The provisions of Article 6 shall not apply to the following:

Chapter II Procedure for settling administrative disputes

Article 7

Procedura prealabilă
(1) Before addressing the competent administrative litigation court, a person who considers themselves harmed in a right or legitimate interest by an individual administrative act addressed to them must request the issuing public authority or the hierarchical superior authority, if it exists, within 30 days from the date of communication of the act, its revocation, in whole or in part. For good reasons, the aggrieved person, the recipient of the act, may introduce the preliminary complaint, in the case of unilateral administrative acts, after the deadline provided for in para. (1), but no later than 6 months from the date of issuance of the act.
(As of 02-08-2018, paragraph (1) of Article 7, Chapter II was amended by Article I, point 5 of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
Note
Decision to reject: HP No. 74/2018, published in the Official Monitor No. 25 of January 10, 2019.

Decision to reject: HP no. 54/2018, published in the Official Monitor no. 807 on September 20, 2018.
(1^1) In the case of the normative administrative act, the prior complaint can be formulated at any time.
(1^1) to art. 7 was introduced by art. I para. (8) of LAW no. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 510 of July 30, 2007. )
(2) The provisions of para. (1) shall also apply where the special act provides for an administrative-judicial procedure, and the party has not opted for this.
(3) Entitled to lodge a prior complaint and the injured person in a right or legitimate interest, by an administrative act of individual character, addressed to another subject of law. The prior complaint, in the case of unilateral administrative acts, shall be lodged within 30 days from the moment the injured person has become aware, by any means, of the content of the act. For good reasons, the prior complaint can also be formulated after the 30-day deadline, but no later than 6 months from the date on which it has become aware, by any means, of its content. The 6-month period provided for in this paragraph, as well as that provided for in para. (1) are terms of prescription.
(As of 02-08-2018, paragraph (3) of Article 7, Chapter II was amended by Article I, point 5 of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
Note
Decision to reject: HP No. 74/2018, published in the Official Monitor No. 25 of January 10, 2019.
(4) The preliminary complaint, drawn up in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1), shall be resolved within the time limit laid down in Article 2(1)(h)*.
(5) In the case of actions brought by the prefect, the Ombudsman, the Public Prosecutor, the National Agency for Public Servants, those concerning claims of persons harmed by orders or provisions of orders or of actions against administrative acts which can no longer be revoked as they have entered the civil circuit and produced legal effects, as well as in the cases provided for in Article 2 paragraph (2) and Article 4, prior complaint is not mandatory.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (5) of Article 7, Chapter II was amended by Article 1, Point 5 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
(6) The prior complaint in the case of actions that have as their object administrative contracts must be made within 6 months, which will begin to run:
(As amended by Article I, Point 6 of Law No. 212 of July 25, 2018, published in the Official Monitor No. 658 of July 30, 2018, the introductory part of paragraph (6) of Article 7, Chapter II)
a) from the date of conclusion of the contract, in the case of disputes related to its conclusion;
b) from the date when the claimant became aware of the cancellation, but no later than one year after the conclusion of the contract.
(As amended by Article I, Point 6 of Law No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the Official Monitor No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
c) Repealed.
(la 02-08-2018, Litera c) din Alineatul (6), Articolul 7 , Capitolul II a fost abrogată de Punctul 7, Articolul I din LEGEA nr. 212 din 25 iulie 2018, publicată în MONITORUL OFICIAL nr. 658 din 30 iulie 2018 )
d) Repealed.
(Art. 7 lit. d) of Chapter II was repealed by Article 1 point 7 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
e) Repealed.
(As of 02-08-2018, Letter e) from Paragraph (6), Article 7, Chapter II was repealed by Point 7, Article I of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
(Par. (6) of Art. 7 was amended by Art. I para. (9) of LAW No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 510 of July 30, 2007. )
Note
By DECISION No. 12 of 14 January 2020, published in the Official Monitor No. 198 of 11 March 2020, the Constitutional Court admitted the exception of unconstitutionality and found that:

The provisions of Article 7 (6) of Law No. 554/2004, as it was drafted before the amendment by Law No. 212/2018, are constitutional only to the extent that they do not require the contracting public authority to follow the preliminary procedure.
The clause "has the meaning of conciliation in commercial disputes, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code being applicable mutatis mutandis" from the provisions of art. 7 para. (6) of Law no. 554/2004, in the previous wording prior to the modification by Law no. 212/2018 is unconstitutional.
Note
Decision to reject: HP no. 75/2018, published in the Official Monitor no. 1066 of December 17, 2018.
(7) Repealed.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (7) of Article 7, Chapter II was repealed by Point 8, Article I of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )

Article 8

The subject of the legal action
(1) A person harmed in a legally recognized right or legitimate interest by a unilateral administrative act, dissatisfied with the response received to the preliminary complaint or who has not received any response within the time limit provided for in Article 2 (1) lit. h), may refer the case to the competent administrative court of law, in order to request the total or partial annulment of the act, the repair of the damage caused and, eventually, compensation for moral damage. Likewise, one may turn to the administrative court of law whoever considers themselves harmed in a right or legitimate interest of theirs due to the failure to resolve a request within the deadline or due to an unjustified refusal to resolve it, as well as due to the refusal to carry out a certain administrative operation necessary for the exercise or protection of the right or legitimate interest. The grounds invoked in the request for the annulment of the act are not limited to those invoked in the preliminary complaint.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (1) of Article 8, Chapter II was amended by Article I, Point 9 of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
Note
By DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT No. 459 of 16 September 2014, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 712 of 30 September 2014, the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. 8 para. (1) in relation to art. 2 para. (1) lit. c) first sentence of the Law on administrative litigation No. 554/2004 was admitted, it being found that the provisions of art. 8 para. (1) in relation to art. 2 para. (1) lit. c) first sentence of the Law on administrative litigation No. 554/2004 are constitutional insofar as they are interpreted in the sense that the President's decrees on the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court are excluded from the scope of judicial control as regards the verification of the fulfillment of the condition of "high professional competence".

In conclusion, in the period 30 September 2014-14 November 2014, the provisions of art. 8 para. (1) referred to art. 2 para. (1) lit. c) first sentence of the Law on administrative litigation no. 554/2004 insofar as the President's decrees on the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court are not excluded from the scope of judicial control as regards the verification of the condition of "high professional competence" have been suspended ipso jure, ceasing their legal effects as of 15 November 2014, since the legislator has not intervened to amend the provisions challenged.
Note
Decision to admit: RIL No. 1/2017, published in the Official Monitor No. 223 of March 31, 2017:

In the interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 166 of the Methodology for the application of the provisions referring to the award of the public procurement contract / framework agreement of Law no. 98/2016 on public procurement, approved by Government Decision no. 395/2016, with subsequent modifications and additions, respectively of the provisions of art. 97^1 of Government Decision no. 925/2006 for the approval of the norms for the application of the provisions referring to the award of public procurement contracts from the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 34/2006 on the award of public procurement contracts, public works concession contracts and service concession contracts, with subsequent modifications and additions, in relation to art. 2 para. (1) lit. c) of the Law on administrative litigation no. 554/2004, with subsequent modifications and additions, the competence to solve the disputes having as object the cancellation of the constatation document containing information on the non-fulfillment of contractual obligations by the contractor / associated contractor and on the eventual damages belongs to the civil court, under the conditions of art. 53 para. (1^1) of Law no. 101/2016 on remedies and appeals in the field of award of public procurement contracts, sectoral contracts and concession contracts for public works and services, as well as for the organization and functioning of the National Council for the Settlement of Challenges, with subsequent modifications and additions, and art. 8 para. (2) of the Law on administrative litigation no. 554/2004, with subsequent modifications and additions
(3) In the settlement of disputes referred to in para. (2) the rule is taken into account according to which the principle of freedom of contract is subordinated to the principle of priority of the public interest.
(3) Article 8 para. (3) was amended by Article 1 para. 12 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, No. 510 of July 30, 2007.

Article 9

Actions against the Government's decrees
(1) A person harmed in a right or legitimate interest by orders or provisions of orders may bring an action before the administrative court, accompanied by an exception of unconstitutionality, to the extent that the main object is not the establishment of the unconstitutionality of the order or the provision of the order.
(As amended by Law No. 100 of May 9, 2008, published in the Official Monitor No. 375 of May 16, 2008, Art. 9 para. (1) was amended)
(2) The administrative court, if it considers that the exception meets the conditions provided for in Article 29 (1) and (3) of Law No. 47/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court, as republished, shall refer, by a reasoned ruling, to the Constitutional Court and shall suspend the settlement of the case on the merits.
(3) Following the ruling of the Constitutional Court, the administrative court shall reinstate the case on the docket and set a hearing date, with the parties being summoned. If the ordinance or a provision thereof has been declared unconstitutional, the court shall rule on the merits of the case; otherwise, the action shall be dismissed as inadmissible.
(3) Article 9 para. (3) was amended by Article 13 para. 1 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, No. 510 of July 30, 2007.
(4) In the event that the decision to declare unconstitutionality is the result of an exception raised in another case, the action may be brought directly before the competent administrative court of law, within a one-year period of limitation, calculated from the date of publication of the Constitutional Court's decision in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.
(4) Article 9 para. (4) was amended by Article 13 para. 1 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, No. 510 of July 30, 2007.
(5) The action provided for in this Article may concern the award of compensation for damage caused by Government Ordinances, the annulment of administrative acts issued on their basis, as well as, where appropriate, the obligation of a public authority to issue an administrative act or to carry out a certain administrative operation.
(5) to Article 9 was introduced by Article I para. 14 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007. )
Note
By DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT No. 660 of 4 July 2007, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 525 of 2 August 2007, the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 9 of the Law on Administrative Litigation No. 554/2004 was allowed, insofar as it permits the action introduced before the administrative court to have as its main object the finding of the unconstitutionality of an ordinance or a provision of an ordinance.

DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT No. 660 of 4 July 2007, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 525 of 2 August 2007 referred to Article 9 of Law No. 554/2004 as it was before Law No. 262 of 19 July 2007, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 510 of 30 July 2007.

Conform art. 147 din CONSTITUȚIA ROMÂNIEI republicată în MONITORUL OFICIAL nr. 767 din 31 octombrie 2003, dispozițiile din legile și ordonanțele în vigoare, precum și cele din regulamente, constatate ca fiind neconstituționale, își încetează efectele juridice la 45 de zile de la publicarea deciziei Curții Constituționale dacă, în acest interval, Parlamentul sau Guvernul, după caz, nu pun de acord prevederile neconstituționale cu dispozițiile Constituției. Pe durata acestui termen, dispozițiile constatate ca fiind neconstituționale sunt suspendate de drept.

Under these circumstances, the provisions of Article 9, as they stood before the latest amendments, were suspended in the period 2 August 2007-16 September 2007, inasmuch as they allowed the main subject of the action introduced before the administrative court of law to be the finding of the unconstitutionality of an ordinance or a provision therein, ceasing their legal effects as of 17 September 2007, since the legislator did not intervene to amend the provisions under attack.

Article 10

Competent court
(1) Disputes concerning administrative acts issued or concluded by local and county public authorities, as well as those concerning taxes and duties, contributions, customs duties, as well as their accessories up to 3,000,000 lei shall be settled by the administrative-fiscal courts, and those concerning administrative acts issued or concluded by central public authorities, as well as those concerning taxes and duties, contributions, customs duties, as well as their accessories exceeding 3,000,000 lei shall be settled by the sections for administrative and fiscal litigation of the courts of appeal, unless otherwise provided by an organic special law.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (1) of Article 10, Chapter II was amended by Article I, Point 10 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
Note
Decision to admit: RIL No. 1/2017, published in the Official Monitor No. 223 of March 31, 2017:

In the unitary interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 85 para. (2) of Law no. 448/2006 on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, as republished, with subsequent modifications and additions, art. 115 para. (1) lit. a) and art. 133 para. (1) of Law no. 272/2004 on the protection and promotion of the rights of the child, as republished, with subsequent modifications and additions, and art. 10 para. (3) of Government Decision no. 1,437/2004 on the organization and methodology of the functioning of the commission for the protection of the child, in relation to art. 2 para. (1) lit. b), c) and f), art. 8 para. (1) and art. 10 para. (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004, with subsequent modifications and additions, the competence to rule in the first instance on disputes concerning the annulment of the decisions of the commission for the protection of the child on the classification of the degree and type of disability of the child with disabilities belongs to the tribunals - sections of administrative litigation / specialized panels in the field of administrative litigation.
(1^1) Requests for administrative acts concerning amounts representing non-reimbursable financing from the European Union shall be resolved according to the monetary criterion, and requests concerning non-evaluable administrative acts shall be resolved according to the rank of the authority, in accordance with the provisions of para. (1).
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (1^1) of Article 10, Chapter II was amended by Article I, Point 10 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
(2) Appeals against judgments handed down by the administrative-fiscal courts shall be heard by the administrative and fiscal sections of the courts of appeal, and appeals against judgments handed down by the administrative and fiscal sections of the courts of appeal shall be heard by the Administrative and Fiscal Section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, unless otherwise provided for by a special organic law.
(Par. (2) of Art. 10 was amended by Art. I para. (15) of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007.)
(3) The plaintiff, whether a natural or legal person of private law, shall address the court at his domicile or registered office. The plaintiff, a public authority, public institution or similar, shall address the court at the domicile or registered office of the defendant.
(As amended by Law No. 212 of July 25, 2018, published in the Official Monitor No. 658 of July 30, 2018, Article 10, Chapter II, paragraph (3) on 02-08-2018)
(4) Territorial jurisdiction to hear the case shall be observed even when the action is brought on behalf of the claimant by any person of public or private law, regardless of his quality in the process.
(As of 02-08-2018, Article 10 of Chapter II was supplemented by Point 11, Article I of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
Note
Decision to admit: RIL no. 13/2015, published in the Official Monitor no. 690 on September 11, 2015:

Article 11

The term for introducing the action
(1) Claims for the cancellation of an individual administrative act, an administrative contract, the recognition of the claimed right and the compensation for the damage caused can be introduced within 6 months from:
a) date of communication of the response to the preliminary complaint;
b) data of the unjustified refusal to settle the claim;
c) the date of expiry of the deadline for resolving the preliminary complaint, respectively the date of expiry of the legal deadline for resolving the request;
d) the expiry date of the period provided for in Article 2(1)(h), calculated from the notification of the administrative act issued in the favourable settlement of the request or, as the case may be, the preliminary complaint;
d^1) data of taking note of the content of the act, if the prior complaint is no longer mandatory;
(As of 21-04-2023, Paragraph (1) of Article 11, Chapter II was supplemented by Point 1, Article II of the LAW No. 102 of 13 April 2023, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 322 of 18 April 2023)
e) repealed.
(1) (Litera e) din Alineatul (1) , Articolul 11 , Capitolul II a fost abrogată de Punctul 12, Articolul I din LEGEA nr. 212 din 25 iulie 2018, publicată în MONITORUL OFICIAL nr. 658 din 30 iulie 2018 )
Note
By DECISION No. 12 of 14 January 2020, published in the Official Journal No. 198 of 11 March 2020, the Constitutional Court admitted the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of Article 11 (1) lit. e) of Law No. 554/2004, in the previous wording prior to the amendment by Law No. 212/2018, are unconstitutional.

(1) Article 11 para. (1) was amended by Article I para. 16 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007. )
(2) For good reason, in the case of individual administrative acts, the claim may also be filed after the deadline set out in paragraph (1), but no later than one year from the date of communication of the act, the date of notification, the date of submission of the claim or the date of conclusion of the conciliation minutes, as the case may be.
(Par. (2) of Art. 11 was amended by Art. I para. (16) of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007.)
Note
By DECISION No. 12 of 14 January 2020, published in the Official Journal No. 198 of 11 March 2020, the Constitutional Court admitted the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the phrase "the date of conclusion of the conciliation record" from art. 11 para. (2) of Law no. 554/2004 is unconstitutional.

According to Article 147 (1) of the Constitution of Romania, republished in the Official Monitor no. 767 of October 31, 2003, the provisions of laws and ordinances in force, as well as those of regulations, found to be unconstitutional, shall cease their legal effects 45 days from the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court, if, within this period, Parliament or the Government, as the case may be, do not bring the unconstitutional provisions into compliance with the provisions of the Constitution. During this period, the provisions found to be unconstitutional are suspended by right.

Therefore, in the period March 11-April 24, 2020, the phrase "the date of the conclusion of the conciliation minutes" in art. 11 para. (2) of Law no. 554/2004 was suspended by law, ceasing its legal effects as of April 25, 2020, since the legislator did not intervene to amend the provision attacked.
Note
Decision to admit: RIL no. 22/2019, published in the Official Monitor no. 853 of October 22, 2019:

In the unitary interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 19 of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004, with the subsequent modifications and additions, in relation to the provisions of art. 11 para. (2) of the same normative act, the date on which the prescription term for bringing an action for compensation begins to run is the moment when the person harmed by an illegal administrative act became aware of or should have become aware of the extent of the damage, not being directly and a priori linked either to the communication of the illegal administrative act or to the moment when the decision to annul it became final.

Decision to reject: HP No. 61/2018, published in the Official Monitor No. 905 of October 26, 2018.
(2^1) In the event of the suspension, under the special law, of the procedure for the preliminary complaint, the term provided for in paragraph (1) runs after the resumption of the procedure, from the moment of its completion or from the date of expiry of the legal term for its solution, as the case may be, if the term provided for in paragraph (2) has expired.
(Par. (2^1) to Art. 11 was introduced by Art. I para. (17) of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007.)
(3) In the case of actions brought by the prefect, the Ombudsman, the Public Prosecutor's Office or the National Agency for Public Servants, the time limit shall run from the date on which the existence of the illegal act became known, with the provisions of paragraph (2) applying accordingly.
(4) Ordinances or provisions of ordinances that are deemed unconstitutional, as well as administrative acts of a normative character that are deemed illegal, may be challenged at any time.
(5) The period provided for in para. (1) is a period of limitation, while the period provided for in para. (2) is a period of lapse.

Article 12

The necessary documents
The claimant attaches to the lawsuit a copy of the administrative act he is challenging, or, as the case may be, the response of the public authority communicating the refusal to resolve his request. In the event that the claimant has not received a response to his request, he will submit to the file a copy of the request, certified by the registration number and date with the public authority, as well as any document proving the fulfillment of the preliminary procedure, if this endeavor was mandatory. In the event that the claimant brings an action against the authority that refuses to enforce the administrative act issued as a result of the favorable resolution of the request or the preliminary complaint, he will also submit to the file a certified copy of this act.
(Art. 12 was amended by art. I para. 18 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007. )

Article 13

Citation of parties, relationships
(1) Upon receipt of the application, the court shall order the parties to be summoned. The issuing public authority shall submit with its pleadings the act under challenge, together with all the documentation on which it was based, as well as any other documents necessary for the resolution of the case. The court may request the issuer to submit any other documents necessary for the resolution of the case.
(As of 02-08-2018, paragraph (1) of Article 13, Chapter II was amended by point 13, Article I of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
(2) In the event that the claimant is a third party within the meaning of Article 1 (2) or when the action is brought by the Ombudsman or the Public Prosecutor's Office, the court shall request the issuing public authority to urgently communicate the attacked act together with the documentation which served as a basis for its issuance, as well as any other documents necessary for the resolution of the case.
(3) Accordingly, in cases provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2), as appropriate, the same procedure shall be followed in the case of actions which have as their object the refusal to resolve the request regarding a right recognized by law or a legitimate interest.
(3) Article 13 para. (3) was amended by Article 1 para. 19 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007. )
(4) If the public authority fails to submit the requested documents within the time limit set by the court, its head shall be obliged, by an interlocutory decision, to pay the state, as a judicial fine, 10% of the minimum gross salary for each day of unjustified delay.

Article 14

Suspension of the act's execution
(1) In well-justified cases and to prevent imminent damage, after notifying, under the provisions of Article 7, the public authority that issued the act or the hierarchically superior authority or within a maximum of 30 days from becoming aware of the content of the act, which can no longer be revoked, the injured person may request the competent court to order the suspension of the execution of the unilateral administrative act until the pronouncement of the court of first instance. In the event that the injured person does not bring the action to annul the act within a maximum of 60 days from the introduction of the suspension action and if the substance of the suspension request has not been resolved, the court seized with the suspension request shall establish this fact and shall reject the suspension request as lacking interest. If the suspension has been ordered, it shall cease as a matter of right and without any formalities.
(As of 21-04-2023, Paragraph (1) of Article 14, Chapter II was amended by Point 2, Article II of the LAW no. 102 of 13 April 2023, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 322 of 18 April 2023 )
(2) The court shall decide on the request for suspension, urgently and with priority, with the citation of the parties. The procedure provided for in Articles 200 and 201 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable. The response is mandatory and shall be filed in the case file at least 3 days before the hearing date. The claimant shall take cognizance of the content of the response from the case file. The court may grant a new hearing date if the claimant requests a postponement to take cognizance of the content of the response.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (2) of Article 14, Chapter II was amended by Article 1, Point 14 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
(3) In cases of significant public interest that may seriously disrupt the functioning of an administrative public service, the request for suspension of the normative administrative act may also be filed by the Public Ministry, ex officio or upon notification, with the provisions of paragraph (2) applying mutatis mutandis.
(4) The decision pronouncing the suspension is enforceable by law. It may be appealed within 5 days of notification. The appeal does not suspend enforcement.
(5) In the event that a new administrative act is issued with the same content as the one suspended by the court, it is automatically suspended. In this case, prior complaint is not mandatory.
(6) Subsequent motions to stay for the same reasons cannot be made.
(7) The suspension of the administrative act has the effect of stopping any form of enforcement, until the expiry of the suspension period.

(Art. 14 was amended by art. I para. 20 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007.)

Article 15

Request for suspension by main action
(1) The suspension of the unilateral administrative act may be requested by the claimant, for the reasons provided for in Article 14, and by means of a request addressed to the competent court for the total or partial annulment of the act under attack. In this case, the court may order the suspension of the attacked administrative act, until the definitive settlement of the case. The suspension request may be made at the same time as the main action or by means of a separate action, within a maximum period of 60 days from the introduction of the main action.
(As of 21-04-2023, Paragraph (1) of Article 15, Chapter II was amended by Article II, Point 3 of LAW No. 102 of 13 April 2023, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 322 of 18 April 2023)
(2) The provisions of Article 14 (2)-(7) shall apply mutatis mutandis.
(2) Para. (2) of Article 15 was amended by Article 1 para. (21) of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 510 of July 30, 2007.
(3) The decision on the request for suspension is enforceable by law, and the filing of an appeal, pursuant to Article 14 (4), does not suspend the enforcement.
(4) In the event of the admission of the claim, the suspension measure, ordered under Article 14, shall be automatically extended until the final settlement of the case, even if the claimant has not requested the suspension of the administrative act under paragraph (1).
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (4) of Article 15, Chapter II was amended by Article 1, Point 15 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)

Article 16

Introduction of the official in question
(1) The claims for justice provided for in this law may also be brought personally against the person who contributed to the preparation, issuance, adoption or conclusion of the act or, as the case may be, who is guilty of refusing to resolve the claim regarding a subjective right or legitimate interest, if compensation is claimed for the damage caused or for the delay. In the event that the action is allowed, that person may be obliged to pay compensation, jointly and severally with the public authority sued.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (1) of Article 16, Chapter II was amended by Article I, Point 16 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
(2) The person thus acted in justice can call in guarantee his hierarchical superior, from which he received the written order to elaborate or not to elaborate the act.

Article 16(1)

When the legal relationship deduced from the judgment requires it, the administrative litigation court will bring the necessity of joining a third party to the attention of the parties. If neither party requests the joinder of the third party and the court considers that the case cannot be decided without the participation of the third party, it shall dismiss the claim without ruling on the merits.
(As of 02-08-2018, Article 16^1 of Chapter II was amended by Article 1, Point 17 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)

Article 17

Judecarea cererilor
(1) Petitions addressed to the court shall be tried in a public session, in the panel established by law. The response is mandatory and shall be communicated to the claimant at least 15 days before the first hearing date.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (1) of Article 17, Chapter II was amended by Article I, Point 18 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
(2) The stamp duties provided for in Government Emergency Ordinance No. 80/2013 on judicial stamp duties, as subsequently amended and supplemented, shall be charged for applications made under this Act.
(As of 02-08-2018, paragraph (2) of Article 17, Chapter II was amended by Article I, point 18 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
(3) The decisions shall be drafted and reasoned within a maximum of 30 days from the pronouncement.
(3) Para. (3) of Article 17 was amended by Article 1 para. 25 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, No. 510 of July 30, 2007.

Article 18

The solutions that the court can provide
(1) The court, when deciding on the claim referred to in Article 8(1), may, as the case may be, cancel the administrative act in whole or in part, oblige the public authority to issue an administrative act, release another document or perform a certain administrative operation.
(1) Article 18 para. (1) was amended by Article 1 para. 26 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, No. 510 of July 30, 2007.
(2) The court is competent to rule, outside the situations provided for in Article 1 paragraph (6), also on the legality of the administrative operations which formed the basis for the issuance of the act subject to judgment.
(2) Para. (2) of Article 18 was amended by Article 1, para. 26 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, No. 510 of July 30, 2007.
Note
Decision to reject: HP no. 13/2018, published in the Official Monitor no. 432 of May 22, 2018.
(3) In the event of the claim being allowed, the court shall also decide on compensation for material and moral damage, if the claimant has requested this.
(4) When the subject of the administrative litigation is formed by an administrative contract, depending on the facts, the court may:
a) order its cancellation, in whole or in part;
b) obliges the public authority to conclude the contract to which the claimant is entitled;
c) imposes on one of the parties the performance of a certain obligation;
d) to replace the consent of one party, when the public interest requires it;
e) obliges to pay compensation for material and moral damage.
(5) The solutions provided for in para. (1) and para. (4) lit. b) and c) may be established under the penalty of a fine applicable to the party bound, for each day of delay.
(5) Article 18 para. (5) was amended by Article 1 para. 26 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, No. 510 of July 30, 2007.
(6) In all cases, the court may, upon request of the interested party, establish, by its decision, a term for execution, as well as the fine provided for in art. 24 para. (2)*).
(Par. (6) of Art. 18 was introduced by Art. I para. (27) of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007.)

Article 19

The term for prescription of claims
(1) When the injured party has requested the cancellation of the administrative act, without at the same time claiming compensation, the limitation period for the claim for compensation shall run from the date on which he became aware or ought to have become aware of the extent of the damage.
(2) Applications shall be lodged with the competent administrative courts within the one-year time limit laid down in Article 11(2)*.
(2^1) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall also apply mutatis mutandis to administrative contracts.
(Par. (2^1) to Art. 19 was introduced by Art. I para. 28 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Gazette No. 510 of July 30, 2007.)
(3) The applications provided for in para. (2) shall be subject to the rules of this Act as regards the procedure and the court fees.
Note
Decision to admit: RIL no. 22/2019, published in the Official Monitor no. 853 of October 22, 2019:

Decision to reject: HP No. 61/2018, published in the Official Monitor No. 905 of October 26, 2018.

Article 20

The Recursion
(1) The decision rendered in the first instance may be appealed within 15 days of notification.
(1) Article 20 para. (1) was amended by Article 1 para. 29 of Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Monitor No. 510 of July 30, 2007. )
(2) The appeal suspends the execution and is tried as a matter of urgency. The procedure provided for in Article 493 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply in administrative litigation.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (2) of Article 20, Chapter II was amended by Article 1, Point 19 of LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018)
(3) In the event of the acceptance of the appeal, the appeal court, by annulling the judgment, shall re-try the case on its merits. When the first instance decision was rendered without judging the merits or if the judgment was rendered in the absence of the party who was illegally summoned both at the administration of evidence and at the discussion of the merits, the case shall be referred, once only, to this court. In the event that the judgment in the first instance was rendered in the absence of the party who was illegally summoned at the administration of evidence but was legally summoned at the discussion of the merits, the appeal court, by annulling the sentence, shall re-try the case on its merits.
(3) Para. (3) of Article 20 was amended by Article 54 para. (4) of Law No. 76 of May 24, 2012, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, No. 365 of May 30, 2012.

Article 21

(1) It constitutes a ground for revision, in addition to those provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, the rendering of final judgments in violation of the principle of priority of European Union law, regulated in art. 148 para. (2) in conjunction with art. 20 para. (2) of the Constitution of Romania, as republished.
(2) Are subject to review, for the reason provided in para. (1), and final judgments that do not refer to the merits.
Note
Decision to admit: HP no. 45/2016, published in the Official Monitor no. 386 of May 23, 2017:

In the interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 21 para. (2) first indent of the Law on administrative litigation no. 554/2004, with the subsequent modifications and additions, the revision request is admissible on the basis of decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, regardless of the moment of their pronouncement and the fact that the pre-existing European law provisions, violated by the decision whose revision is requested, were invoked or not in the basic litigation.

The deadline for filing a review request based on the provisions of Article 21 (2) of Law No. 554/2004 is one month and starts from the date of notification of the final decision subject to review.
(3) The request for revision shall be filed within one month from the date of communication of the final decision and shall be dealt with urgently and with priority.

(As of 02-08-2018, Article 21 of Chapter II was amended by Article 20, Article I of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )

Chapter III Execution Procedure

Article 22

Executive Title

Hotărârile judecătorești definitive pronunțate potrivit prezentei legi sunt titluri executorii.
(As of 02-06-2012, Art. 22 was amended by Article 54, paragraph 6 of LAW no. 76 of 24 May 2012, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 365 of 30 May 2012. )

Article 23

Publication Obligation
Hotărârile judecătorești definitive și irevocabile prin care s-a anulat în tot sau în parte un act administrativ cu caracter normativ sunt general obligatorii și au putere numai pentru viitor. Acestea se publică obligatoriu după motivare, la solicitarea instanțelor, în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, sau, după caz, în monitoarele oficiale ale județelor ori al municipiului București, fiind scutite de plata taxelor de publicare.
(As amended by Law No. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Monitor No. 510 of July 30, 2007, Article 23a was amended)
Note
Decision to admit: HP no. 10/2015, published in the Official Monitor no. 458 on June 25, 2015:

The provisions of Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented, are interpreted as meaning that an irrevocable/final judicial decision by which a normative administrative act is fully or partly annulled has effects also in respect of individual administrative acts issued on the basis thereof, which, at the date of publication of the judicial decision annulling them, are contested in cases pending before the judicial authorities.

Decision to reject: HP No. 4/2016, published in the Official Monitor No. 226 of March 28, 2016.

Article 24

Obligation of execution
(1) If, as a result of the acceptance of the claim, the public authority is obliged to conclude, replace or amend the administrative act, to issue another document or to perform certain administrative operations, the execution of the final decision shall be voluntary within the time limit laid down therein, and in the absence of such a time limit, within a maximum of 30 days from the date of the final decision.
Note
Decision to admit: HP no. 35/2016, published in the Official Monitor no. 1023 of December 20, 2016:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 24 (1) of Law No. 554/2004 on administrative litigation, as amended and supplemented, account must be taken of the time limits laid down in that article, but not those regulated by Article 32 of Law No. 165/2013 on measures to finalize the process of restituing, in kind or by equivalent, properties wrongfully appropriated during the communist regime in Romania, as amended and supplemented.

Decision to admit: HP No. 2/2023, published in the Official Monitor No. 141 of February 20, 2023:

The provisions of Article 24(1)-(3) of Law No 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented, must be interpreted as meaning that the enforcement procedure for a final judgment handed down by an administrative court applies also in cases where the obligation imposed by that judgment is to adopt a unilateral administrative act of an individual character.

The provisions of Article 24(3) and (4) of Law No 554/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the procedure for fixing the final amount due to the creditor by way of penalties applies also in cases where, by the enforcement order, the court of law has established penalties applicable to the obligor for each day of delay, in accordance with Article 18(5) of Law No 554/2004.
(2) In the event that the debtor does not voluntarily fulfill his obligation, it is fulfilled by enforced execution, following the procedure provided for in this law.
(3) At the creditor's request, within the prescription period for the right to enforce, which runs from the expiry of the terms provided for in paragraph (1) and which have not been culpably respected, the enforcement court, by a judgment rendered with the citation of the parties, shall apply to the legal person, public authority or institution, as the case may be, a fine of 20% of the gross minimum wage per day of delay, which shall be revenue to the state budget, and shall grant the claimant penalties, under the conditions of Article 906 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a maximum term of 3 months, calculated from the date of communication of the conclusion regarding the establishment of the fine.
(As of 10-04-2023, Paragraph (3) of Article 24, Chapter III was amended by Point 1, ARTICLE ONE of LAW No. 84 of April 6, 2023, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 294 of 07 April 2023)
Note
Decision to admit: HP no. 12/2018, published in the Official Monitor no. 418 on May 16, 2018:

In interpreting the provisions of Article 24 (4) of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented:

– the term within which the creditor may request the fixing of the amount due by the debtor as penalties is the term of prescription of the enforced execution, of 3 years, regulated by art. 706 of the Civil Procedure Code, a term which runs from the date of execution of the obligation or, in case of non-performance, from the date of expiry of the term of three months, within which the debtor had the possibility to perform the obligation in kind;

– the penalties established as a percentage per day of delay are calculated from the moment indicated in the decision pronounced under the procedure regulated by art. 24 para. (3) of Law no. 554/2004, with the subsequent modifications and additions, until the execution of the obligation, but no later than the moment of expiry of the term of three months, within which the debtor had the possibility to execute the obligation in kind, in case of non-execution;

– under the procedure regulated by art. 24 para. (4) of Law no. 554/2004, with subsequent modifications and additions, the court of law can establish the value of the object of the obligation to which the late payment penalties established in percentage per day of delay apply, in the hypothesis in which the court provided for in art. 24 para. (3) of the same law has not established this.

Decision to admit: HP No. 2/2023, published in the Official Monitor No. 141 of February 20, 2023:

The provisions of Article 24(3) and (4) of Law No 554/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the procedure for fixing the final amount due to the creditor by way of penalties applies also in cases where, by the enforcement order, the court of law has established penalties applicable to the obligor for each day of delay, in accordance with Article 18(5) of Law No 554/2004.
(4) If within 3 months from the date of communication of the decision to apply the fine and grant penalties, the debtor, culpably, does not fulfill the obligation provided for in the enforceable title, the enforcement court, at the request of the creditor, shall fix the amount due to the state and the amount due to him with penalties, by decision given with citation of the parties. At the same time, by the same decision, the court shall establish, under the conditions of art. 892 of the Civil Procedure Code, the damages that the debtor owes the creditor for the failure to fulfill the obligation in kind.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (4) of Article 24, Chapter III was amended by Point 21, Article I of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
Note
Decision to admit: HP no. 12/2018, published in the Official Monitor no. 418 on May 16, 2018:

In interpreting the provisions of Article 24 (4) of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented:

Decision to admit: HP No. 2/2023, published in the Official Monitor No. 141 of February 20, 2023:

The provisions of art. 24 para. (5) of the Law on administrative litigation no. 554/2004, introduced by Law no. 138/2014 for the amendment and supplementation of Law no. 134/2010 on the Civil Procedure Code, as well as for the amendment and supplementation of certain related normative acts, also apply to the execution of obligations established by final court decisions before the entry into force of Law no. 138/2014.

(As amended by Law no. 138 of October 15, 2014, published in the Official Monitor no. 753 of October 16, 2014, Article 24a was modified)

Article 25

Execution instance
(1) The enforcement instance, which in the administrative litigation is, according to art. 2 para. (1) lit. t), the court that has decided the substance of the administrative litigation, applies, respectively imposes the sanction and penalties provided for in art. 24 para. (3), without the need for enforcement and approval of the forced execution by the judicial executor.
Note
Admissions Decision: RIL No. 17/2017, published in the Official Monitor No. 930 of 27 November 2017:

In the unitary interpretation and application of the legal provisions on the remedy in administrative litigation, against the decisions rendered in this matter, only the remedy of appeal can be exercised, with the exception provided for in Article 25 (3) of Law No. 554/2004 on administrative litigation, as subsequently amended and supplemented.
(2) The applications provided for in Article 24 (3) and (4) shall be tried in the chamber, as a matter of urgency, and shall be exempt from court fees. The procedure provided for in Articles 200 and 201 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not apply. The response is mandatory and shall be filed with the case file at least 3 days before the hearing date. The plaintiff shall take cognizance of the content of the response from the case file. The court may grant a new hearing date if the plaintiff requests a postponement to take cognizance of the content of the response.
(As amended by Article 1, point 22 of LAW No. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 658 of 30 July 2018)
(3) The decisions rendered under the conditions of Article 24 (3) and (4) are subject only to appeal, within 5 days of notification.
(As of 02-08-2018, Paragraph (3) of Article 25, Chapter III was amended by Point 22, Article I of the LAW no. 212 of 25 July 2018, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL no. 658 of 30 July 2018 )
Note
Admissions Decision: RIL No. 17/2017, published in the Official Monitor No. 930 of 27 November 2017:

(As amended by Law no. 138 of 15 October 2014, published in the Official Monitor no. 753 of 16 October 2014, Article 25a was modified)

Article 26

Action for recourse
The legal person, public authority or public institution may bring an action against those responsible for the failure to enforce the decision, according to common law. In the case where the guilty parties are public officials or civil servants, special regulations apply.
(As of 10-04-2023, Article 26 of Chapter III was amended by Point 2, SINGLE ARTICLE of the LAW No. 84 of April 6, 2023, published in the OFFICIAL MONITOR No. 294 of 07 April 2023)

Chapter IV Transitional and Final Provisions

Article 27

Judecarea cauzelor aflate pe rol
Cases pending before the courts as of the date of entry into force of this Law shall continue to be tried under the law applicable at the time of submission of the case to the court.

Article 28

Completion under common law
(1) The provisions of this Act shall be supplemented by the provisions of the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not incompatible with the specific nature of the power relationships between public authorities, on the one hand, and persons whose rights or legitimate interests have been infringed, on the other.
(1) Article 28 para. (1) was amended by Article 54 para. 9 of LAW No. 76 of May 24, 2012, published in the MONITORUL OFICIAL No. 365 of May 30, 2012. )
(2) The administrative litigation court cannot suspend the trial of the case when criminal proceedings have begun for an offense committed in connection with the administrative act under attack, if the claimant - injured party - insists on continuing the trial of the case.
(3) Actions brought by public entities and any public authority in defence of a public interest, as well as those brought against normative administrative acts, may no longer be withdrawn, except where they are brought for the defence of the legitimate rights or interests of which natural or legal persons of private law may be endowed.

(As amended by Law no. 262 of July 19, 2007, published in the Official Monitor no. 510 of July 30, 2007, Article 28a was modified)

Article 29

Corelarea terminologică
Wherever in a special law prior to this law there is a reference to the Law on Administrative Litigation No. 29/1990 or generically to the administrative court, the reference shall be deemed to be made to the corresponding provisions of this Law.

Article 30

Transitional Provisions
Until the establishment of the administrative-fiscal courts, disputes are resolved by the administrative law sections of the courts.

Article 31

Intrarea în vigoare
(1) This Act shall enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Romanian Official Gazette, Part I.
(2) On the same date, the Law on Administrative Litigation No. 29/1990, published in the Romanian Official Gazette, Part I, No. 122 of 8 November 1990, as subsequently amended, as well as any other contrary provisions, shall be repealed.

This Act was adopted by the Parliament of Romania, in compliance with the provisions of Article 75 and Article 76 para. (1) of the Constitution of Romania, as republished.
The President of the Chamber of Deputies
VALER DORNEANU
The President of the Senate,
DORU IOAN TĂRĂCILĂ
București, 2 December 2004.
Nr. 554.