On 24th July 2025 the National Assembly adopted at second reading significant amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code. Among other reforms, digitalization of the administrative process is being introduced - an important step in the long-anticipated digital modernization of public authorities’ operations.
The key changes are the following:
1. Proceedings for issuing an individual administrative act (“IAA”) may be conducted entirely electronically, as of 1st of July 2026. Initiation of such proceedings will be possible 24/7, and their conduct in a digital environment will be ensured through the Unified Portal for Electronic Justice and the Information System for Secure Electronic Delivery.
For each submitted request, including those received on paper, administrative bodies will be required to create an electronic case file, where all information and documents submitted by the parties to the proceedings will be stored in chronological order. These innovations will significantly ease the access for both citizens and legal entities to the administration. It is also envisaged that, under certain conditions, the parties will be able to participate in open hearings before the administrative courts via video link.
2. Significant changes are also foreseen in relation to the regime of tacit refusal or tacit consent – i.e. when an administrative body fails to respond to a submitted request within the statutory deadline. This situation has long posed difficulties for private individuals attempting to monitor their cases. On the one hand, they do not receive a formal reply within the deadlines set; on the other hand, the administration’s inaction can be interpreted in different ways depending on the specific situation. The general rule, however, is that the administration’s inaction is equivalent to a tacit refusal under the law, while cases of tacit consent are exceptions.
In an effort to address the issue, the deadline for challenging administrative inaction of this kind is extended to two months, counted from the date by which the authority was legally obliged to issue a decision. If the court revokes an explicit or tacit refusal with binding instructions to the administrative body to issue a new decision, since the conditions for issuing the act are met - and the administrative body nevertheless fails to issue a decision within the required timeframe – the law will presume tacit consent, which clearly benefits the interested party.
3. A definitive answer has been given to the controversial and long-disputed question - what happens when a general administrative act (“GAA”) or subordinate legislative act (“SLA”) is revoked ex officio by the issuing authority, while it is already being challenged in court by an affected party.
Until now, judicial practice has held that the case shall be terminated without the court ruling on the legality of the act, as the legal interest of the appellant was considered to have ceased to exist, once the act has been withdrawn.
However, legislative amendments lay down that even in this scenario – an ex officio revocation of the act by the issuing administrative body - the case may continue if certain conditions are met. In such a case, the court shall rule on the nullity or, respectively, the legality of the act.
The rationale behind this change is that a court judgement declaring an administrative act or a public administrative act void or unlawful is a prerequisite for the complainant to seek compensation for damages under the Liability of the State and Municipalities for Damages Act. This refers to damages incurred as a result of the unlawful act prior to its ex officio revocation by the administrative body.
The objectives pursued by the amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code are related to increasing the accessibility and effectiveness of administrative justice, as well as expanding the possibilities for protecting the rights of citizens and the private sector.
The decisive move towards digitalizing administrative proceedings deserves a positive assessment, and the task ahead will be to monitor its effective implementation in practice, as well as the benefits the reforms in question will bring to business.
