Author
General (scope, time limits)
The timeframe of 30 days provided in Article 52(1) of the Asylum Act shall be suspended during:
- the Dublin procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application;
- the First Country of Asylum procedure;
- the Safe Third Country procedure; or, where appropriate,
- the European safe third country procedure.
- When the reason for suspension no longer exists, the assessment period cannot be less than 20 days.[1]
The 30-day time limit shall be extended successively with further periods of no more than 30 days, and not exceeding 6 months from the lodging of the asylum application in total[2]: if the assessment of the case requires additional documentation, which makes it impossible to carry out the activities necessary to decide on the asylum application or could lead to the non-observance of the guarantees recognised by the law due to causes not imputable to the applicant.
However, if the maximum timeframe of 6 months is exceeded, the applicant should be informed of the delay and shall receive, upon request, information on the reasons of the delay and the time limit for the decision to be taken on their application.[3]
The term of 6 months may be extended successively for new cumulative periods, not exceeding 9 months, when:[4]
- The asylum procedure involves complex elements of fact and/or law;
- A large number of applications for international protection are lodged, making in practice very difficult to assess the claims within 6 months.
Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, a further extension may be applied for a maximum of 3 months.[5]
According to IGI-DAI statistics, in 2024 the average duration was between 30 and 60 days (1-2 months) in the regular asylum procedure.[6] In 2025, the average duration of the regular asylum procedure in the administrative procedure (from the submission of the application to the issuance of a decision at first instance) is about 35.6 days.[7]There were no cases of unaccompanied minors who were subjected to an age assessment procedure. [8]
In 2024, CNRR observed regional discrepancies in decisions issued to asylum applicants, likely due to variations in legal interpretation and case-specific factors.[9] In Galați, JRS representatives reported that all asylum applicants undergo two interviews as part of the procedure, usually conducted promptly. However, delays may occur when interpreters for rare languages are unavailable or when asylum applicants leave the CRPCSA Galați before their interview. The interviews are carried out by IGI staff in collaboration with EUAA personnel.[10]
During 2025, certain differences between Regional Procedure and Accommodation Centers could still be observed. During December 2024 – September 2025 the suspension of the analysis of asylum applications of Syrian citizens, based on the change of regime in Syria was maintained. After the resumption of the analysis of applications, there were differences in the decisions issued, with centres, such as Galati, where all applicants were granted a form of protection, but also centres where, for the majority of applicants, the decisions were to reject the asylum applications. There were no regressions compared to 2024, the general situation was constant, with some centres even noticing certain improvements. In Timisoara a streamlining of the procedure was identified, both in terms of scheduling candidates for interviews in the shortest possible time and eliminating extensions for issuing decisions by the IGI.[11]
Prioritised examination and fast-track processing
According to the law, priority is given to asylum applications lodged by unaccompanied children.[12] IGI takes all the necessary measures for the appointment of a legal representative, who will assist the unaccompanied asylum-seeking child in all stages of the asylum procedure, as soon as possible.[13] In practice, IGI-DAI instructs the Directorate-General for Social Assistance and Child Protection in writing to appoint a legal representative for the unaccompanied child, who will assist them during the asylum procedure. The notification is sent the next day or in a maximum of 3 days after the application is registered and the unaccompanied child has been accommodated in one of the Regional Centres.
In case of vulnerable asylum applicants who are placed in specially designated closed spaces in the Regional Centres (see Detention of Asylum applicants), the identity check and the assessment of their applications should be done with priority.[14] There have been no reported cases of this situation in practice.
In 2024, CNRR observed that, across all Regional Centres where it provides legal counselling, priority is given to vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with severe disabilities — a practice in place since 2022.[15] However, other cases may also be prioritized if deemed well-founded by the determining authority. For instance, during 2024, asylum applicants transferred between camps or those previously held in designated closed spaces were often interviewed immediately after their relocation or accommodation.[16] The prioritization of certain caseloads – cases of vulnerable groups: unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, elderly people, people with major disabilities was maintained in 2025, although it was not a consistent practice throughout the territory.
However, there are other groups for whom the cases could be prioritised, if the determining authority decides that it is a well–founded case. For example, during 2025, the practice showed a case of an asylum applicants previously placed in a specially designed closed space who was interviewed very shortly after accommodation. The prioritisation of the cases meant a much faster examination, which led to shorter decision process.[17]
UNHCR did not observe or receive reports of systemic problems regarding the registration of asylum applications. In the context of arrivals from Ukraine, UNHCR observed several cases in which Ukrainian nationals applied for asylum due to insufficient or unclear information regarding the differences between asylum and temporary protection. In these situations, individuals had intended to benefit from temporary protection but, submitted an asylum application instead. Once they received clearer information about the legal frameworks and associated rights, they withdrew their asylum applications and requested temporary protection. According to UNHCR, these cases were linked to misunderstandings or gaps in initial information provision, rather than to obstacles in accessing either form of protection.[18]
Personal interview
According to the law, an interview is conducted in order to assess the elements of an application for international protection.[19] Although the general rule is that an interview should be held in order to correctly assess the asylum claim, there are two situations where the interview is not mandatory:[20]
- When IGI-DAI may take a decision to grant refugee status on the basis of evidence in the file;
- When there are serious doubts about the capacity of the adult asylum applicant.
All personal interviews, assessments of the reasons invoked by the asylum applicant and decisions are conducted by a designated case officer of IGI-DAI.[21]
In 2024, 185 interviews were conducted through videoconference. IGI-DAI reported that they had no statistics on the total number of interviews conducted and on asylum applications assessed without an interview in 2024.[22] In 2025, the total number of interviews conducted through remote communications means was 186.[23]
In 2025,[24] as in 2024, the EUAA continued to support the Romanian asylum system by deploying caseworkers and interpreters in several Regional Centres, including Bucharest, Timișoara, Șomcuta Mare and Galați. EUAA experts were involved in conducting personal interviews and drafting first-instance assessments, complementing the work of IGI-DAI officials. Additionally, the Agency facilitated the development of national standard operating procedures and templates for interviews and decisions, contributing to greater consistency and procedural alignment. A quality feedback exercise led by the EUAA’s Quality Procedures and Tools Sector was also carried out, culminating in a workshop and the production of a podcast summarising key findings for use by national caseworkers. These actions, coupled with training and capacity-building measures, aimed to enhance the quality and efficiency of the regular procedure.[25]
According to the EUAA, despite a marked decrease in the number of applications in 2024, a dedicated needs assessment confirmed the necessity to maintain support, particularly in the areas focusing on effective implementation of temporary protection, enhanced capacity for the processing of asylum applications and enhanced capacity to provide reception conditions in line with the CEAS.[26]
In 2025, EUAA caseworkers carried out interviews concerning 143 applicants, of which 86% related to the same 10 citizenships, mainly nationals from Syria (32), Iraq (19) and Sudan (16).[27]
The EUAA drafted 188 concluding remarks (down from 1,091 in 2024), of which 77% related to the same 10 citizenships, mainly Syria (48), Sudan (29), Iraq (21) and Cameroon (13).[28]
Interviews are conducted individually, with members of the same family being interviewed separately. When there are underage children in a family, they are interviewed in the presence of a parent. For children under 12 or even 14 years old (or when the child’s age, maturity, and understanding do not permit), the presence of the child is not mandatory, and the IGI officer may decide to interview only one of the parents. Interviews are tailored to the child’s age, level of education, and understanding. The staff is trained in all legal instruments related to interviewing and assisting children. [29]
In its Concluding Observations adopted in May 2025, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child welcomed the legislative amendments that explicitly include asylum-seeking children and children under international protection among the beneficiaries of Law No. 272/2004 on child rights. The Committee recommended effective implementation of the law and urged Romania to ensure the participation of children in decisions affecting them, including in asylum procedures.[30]
According to CNRR, in 2024 all asylum applicants were interviewed, and no cases were recorded in which refugee status was granted only based on documents present in the personal file. During the same year, both officers designated under Article 48, para. (2) of the Asylum Act and EUAA experts (para. (4) of the same article) conducted interviews with asylum applicants, with most decisions being made solely by case officers at the Regional Centre. Asylum legislation does not require the applicant’s consent for the video conference system but does require consent for conducting the interview with a trusted interpreter for translation and/or interpretation. The video conference system was used for applicants speaking rare languages (e.g., Lingala) when interpretation services were not available from the EUAA or in exceptional cases when the interpreters were on vacation.[31]
In 2025, personal interviews were conducted by both the IGI officers and EUAA experts. In practice, all asylum applicants are interviewed as part of the asylum procedure, with no categories or nationalities exempt from this stage. In certain situations, interviews can be conducted via videoconference, especially when a local interpreter is not available. This solution is to avoid excessive delays in the procedure. Overall, no major issues related to confidentiality or IT infrastructure were reported, and the use of digital means allowed the interviews to be conducted under appropriate conditions. The asylum applicant has the right to request that the interviewer and/or interpreter be of a particular gender, depending on personal needs or beliefs. In most cases, this option is provided, but it depends on the availability of interpreters. There were cases when young children could participate in the interview with their parents, e.g. single mother with 2-year-old child. In the case of children, special protection measures are applied. Interviews of minors, especially those between the ages of 4 and 16, are conducted in the presence of the designated representative from the family or of a representative of the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection. The questions and the manner of addressing are adapted to the age and level of understanding of the child, in order to avoid traumatic situations and to respect the best interests of the minor.[32]
Courts also use the video conference system, particularly for rare languages. Some asylum applicants have reported that the quality of interpretation via videoconference was poor, making it difficult to understand, and the process felt impersonal. [33] Whenever possible, if requested by the applicant, both the officer and the interpreter will be of the same gender as the person being interviewed. This is generally implemented in practice, though it depends on the availability of interviewers and interpreters. [34]
According to CNRR, JRS, and UNHCR, the reports containing the analysis and recommendations of EUAA officers are not communicated to applicants together with the rejection decision issued by IGI.
The Committee further encouraged the State to establish procedures ensuring that asylum-seeking, refugee, unaccompanied and separated children are systematically consulted in decisions that affect them. It also underlined the need for detailed procedural safeguards, clear mandates for representatives assisting unaccompanied children, and child-friendly complaint mechanisms.[35]
According to UNHCR, language and interpretation remains an important challenge in the asylum procedure. However, UNHCR also reported a positive example of cooperation in a case involving a rare language. An asylum applicant spoke only a rare language, and no other language could be used for communication. IGI requested UNHCR’s assistance. UNHCR ensured that remote interpretation is arranged. Interpretation support was provided both during the administrative phase and later at judicial stage. This case was highlighted as a good practice example of institutional cooperation in complex linguistic situations.
UNHCR carries out yearly a joint quality assessment exercise with IGI. According to UNHCR, no new structural shortcomings were identified. The main limitations remain related to: interpretation challenges, and the way in which interviews are conducted, recorded and analysed.
At the same time, UNHCR observed an overall improvement in the quality of interviews and decisions. The impact of previous training activities is reportedly visible in the way questions are formulated during interviews and in the reasoning and drafting of decisions. Nonetheless, room for improvement exists, especially in lack of uniformity/alignment of quality across centres and officers.
Notification of the personal interview continues to be provided at short notice. Under a protection monitoring system implemented by UNHCR in cooperation with CNRR, questionnaires were applied in several reception centres. More than half of the respondents indicated that they had been informed two days or less in advance of their main interview. This practice particularly affects applicants accommodated in reception centres.
Romanian legislation does not provide for a minimum notification period to allow applicants sufficient time to prepare for their interview. While applicants may be assisted by a lawyer or NGO representative, short notification periods may limit effective preparation.[36]
JRS Romania reported on one instance in which challenges emerged in the context of an asylum interview in 2025. In this occasion, a JRS counsellor accompanied a mother to an asylum interview for her infant child in Bucharest. Upon arrival, the counsellor was initially denied access by the immigration officer at the entrance, who stated that only lawyers are permitted to attend interviews. Following clarification and consultation with a supervisor, the counsellor was ultimately allowed to participate. The interview was conducted by a EUAA officer and lasted approximately six hours, with a single 20-minute break. Interpretation was provided through cascade interpretation (via an intermediary language); while one interpreter demonstrated a high level of professionalism, the other presented some inconsistencies, which were addressed during the review process. This experience also illustrates some of the practical challenges related to interpretation during asylum procedures.
According to the EUAA-Romania Operational Plan 2025-2026,[37] in the framework of EUAA quality mechanism, the Agency conducts quality assurance exercises. These exercises entail the quality reviews of samples of anonymized lodging interviews, first-instance interviews and opinions/recommendations, Dublin processes and vulnerability assessments carried out by the ASTs, where relevant. The sample of cases can also include anonymized cases processed by the national administrations upon request.
Interpretation
Article 45(2) of the Asylum Act sets out the rules regarding the right to have an interpreter during the personal interview. At the request of the applicant and when deemed necessary for presenting all the reasons for the asylum application, the interview shall be carried out by the case officer, with the support of an interpreter, in the language indicated by the applicant or in a language they understand and can communicate clearly. As far as possible, if the applicant requests it, both the case officer and the interpreter will be of the same gender as the interviewee.[38]
Availability of interpreters and double interpretation
In 2024, translators receive RON 30.91 / hour (approx. EUR 8.14) for interpreting services foreign languages – Romanian and RON 44.82 / page (approx. EUR 9.14) for translation of documents, according to the legal provisions stipulated in Order no.2907/C/2340/2020.[39] These rates do not include VAT.[40] The rates remained the same in 2025.These amounts can be increased according to art. 7 of the Law no. 178/1997 for the authorisation and payment of interpreters and translators,[41] as follows:
- by 50% for translations from or into an oriental language (Japanese, Chinese, etc.) or rarely used language;
- by 50% for translations carried out on an urgent basis (24-48 hours);
- by 100% for simultaneous translations performed at the hearing, in courts, criminal investigation bodies and prosecutors’ offices;
- by 100% when interpreters and translators are required on the weekend, public holidays or between 10 PM and 6 AM.
Quality and conduct
Several problems regarding the quality of the interpretation and conduct of interpreters have been reported. Interpreters are not sufficiently trained and, therefore, they are not impartial.
Related problems were also pointed out:
- Some interpreters still have private conversations with the asylum applicant and do not translate the conversation, or they express emotions, however not at the same scale as in previous years;
- Asylum applicants complained that an interpreter selected the documents that the asylum applicant should present at IGI-DAI, and translated only a summary of what is written on the page and not the whole interview (question and answer).
- Asylum applicants complained that the transcript was not read at the end of the interview in most of the centres.
In 2023, there was also an issue related to the role of interpreters in the interview at Galaţi, which affected how interpretation was done and had a clear impact on the quality of the asylum process.
In 2024, CNRR observed some discrepancies from one region to another regarding the decisions issued to the asylum applicants. The reasons could be differences in the interpretation of the law, as well as the individual elements of each case. During CNRR legal counselling sessions with applicants, some of them claimed that the interpreters did not exactly translate their answers, gave another meaning to statements in the interview, or had a biased attitude towards them. According to the procedure, the interview note must be read at the end; however, applicants often declare that this step did not happen, nor were they given the opportunity to express their will for this to occur. Moreover, there are cases where asylum applicants’ interview (in the administrative phase) or hearing (in the judicial phase) are postponed due to the lack of interpreters, mostly in cases of very rare languages or dialects. Besides that, there are also financial reasons for the lack of interpreters. Some of the interpreters complained about low fees, payment delays, or lack of payment for their services.
In 2023, CNRR[42] made specific efforts to ensure that interpreters received training. In February 2023, CNRR organised a specific training session for the interpreters with which it collaborates in order to respond to the imperative needs of improving language assistance in the asylum procedure. In 2024, because of a gap in the provision of AMIF funds at the national level, no trainings for interpreters were organised. Information materials were also made available on the methods and techniques for interviewing persons undergoing the asylum procedure, the glossary of terminology related to the field and the UNHCR recommendations on communication and interpretation techniques in cases of vulnerable persons, with particular reference to unaccompanied minors. CNRR has a network of interpreters that covers most of the key languages. Interpreters are trained and provided with information materials for continuous training.[43]
According to CNRR, while interpreters were available in 2024, some Regional Centres lack coverage for key languages such as Amharic, Somali, or Kurdish Sorani, which has caused delays in the asylum process and in the examination of several cases.[44] According to CNRR, similar challenges persisted in 2025, with insufficient interpreter coverage for certain key languages continuing to cause delays in the asylum procedure.[45] The unavailability of interpreters can lead to delays in the process. The problem is more pronounced at the second instance level, where interpreters must be certified – although, in practice, trusted individuals are sometimes used instead.[46] Although there was a decrease in the number of reported issues with interpretation quality in 2024, some asylum applicants still raised concerns. Interpreters are trained and required to adhere to a code of conduct.[47] CNRR has observed that applicants may request interpreters of a specific gender. Interpreters collaborate with them, and authorities rely on NGOs to provide interpretation services. Additionally, child protection authorities lack their own interpreters and must also depend on NGOs for language support.[48] As in previous years, there were cases also in 2025 where asylum applicants reported discrepancies in the interpretations of interviews. They claimed that their statements were not translated correctly, therefore the interview did not contain information important to their case. There is a code of conduct that interpreters must adhere to.[49]
Representatives of JRS in Galati have noted that EUAA interpreters are used in interviews during the asylum process. They have hired interpreters for languages such as English, French, Arabic, Kurdish, Somali, Russian, and Ukrainian. However, challenges arise with asylum applicants from Afghanistan, as CRPCSA Galati does not have interpreters on staff for this language. It takes longer to find an interpreter, which complicates the asylum process and leads to delays in decision-making.[50]
Recording and report
The law does not prescribe audio/video recording of the personal interview. Personal interviews and preliminary interviews are not audio/video recorded.
Court sessions are recorded according to the Civil Procedure Code.[51] The rules concerning the recording of court hearings are set out in Article 13 of Act 304/2004 on Judicial Organisation, which provides that:
- The court hearings are recorded by video or audio technical means or recorded by stenography. Recordings are immediately transcribed;
- The clerk or the stenographer shall record all the affirmations, questions and submissions of those present, including the president of the court panel;
- Upon request, the parties may receive a copy of the transcript of the Registrars, minutes or notes of the Registrar.
In 2024 according to CNRR the videoconference system is also used by the courts, mainly in the case of rare languages. There were cases when some asylum applicants stated that the quality of the interpretation through video conferencing was not that good, they had troubles understanding and the process was quite impersonal.[52] The videoconference system remained in use in 2025.
Transcript
The case officer conducting the interview transcribes the questions and the answers/statements verbatim. The transcript includes at least the following data: identification data of the applicant, the name of the case officer who performs the interview, the name of the interpreter and, as the case may be, of the legal representative, the counsellor and/or the lawyer assisting the applicant, the language of the interview, the reasons for the request for international protection, as well as the applicant’s statement that all the data and information presented at the interview are correct. Where appropriate, the interview note shall also include the applicant’s explanations of the failure to present elements to be considered when examining the asylum application and/or clarification of inconsistencies or contradictions in their statements.[53]
At the end of the interview, the transcript of the interview is orally translated by the interpreter to the applicant.[54] The applicant has the possibility to formulate observations and/or to offer clarifications relating to any errors of translation or misunderstanding, which will be recorded in the interview transcript.[55] After this, the transcript is signed on every page by all the persons present at the interview.[56] A copy of the transcript is given to the asylum applicant or legal representative, their lawyer or counsellor, as the case may be, which assisted them at the interview, after the document was signed.[57] If the applicant refuses to sign the transcript, the reasons for their refusal will be mentioned on the transcript. The applicant’s refusal to sign the transcript does not prevent IGI-DAI from taking a decision on the asylum application.[58]
Appeal
The decision taken (admission or rejection) by IGI-DAI is communicated, immediately, to the asylum applicant in writing, through direct communication by the representatives of the IGI-DAI if the asylum applicant lives in the Centre, or by post at the last declared residence of the applicant.[59] The decision may be communicated to the lawyer or NGO representative representing the asylum applicant, upon request from the asylum applicant.[60]
The decision is accompanied by written information, in Romanian and in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand, related to the admission or rejection of the asylum application and the conditions under which the decision may be appealed, as the case may be.[61] In practice, the justification of the decision is written in Romanian and is translated by NGO representatives.
The decision taken by IGI-DAI may be challenged in a two-instance judicial review procedure.
According to CNRR,[62] asylum applicants face many challenges in the appeal process: bureaucracy, short deadlines, inaccessible information. This makes them heavily reliant on the guidance provided by NGOs in this phase. There are many situations where asylum applicants do not receive the court’s notification (due to their own fault or not) and they miss the hearing. An asylum applicant’s absence from the hearing is most of the time interpreted by the court as a lack of responsibility, and it may influence the decision to some extent. Accessing the file in court is also very difficult for asylum applicants due to the language barrier. Moreover, they do not benefit from legal representation in court, due to the lack of financial means to hire a lawyer or because they are not aware of their right to ask for a legal aid lawyer or the court rejects their legal aid request. In 2025, as in 2024, CNRR indicated that similar situations were still encountered in practice, although asylum applicants who benefited from legal counselling generally managed to submit their appeals within the legal deadline.[63]
When asylum applicants contacted CNRR after receiving a negative decision on their application, the reasons for the denial were explained and translated for them by staff of the organisation, along with the mandatory deadline for filing a complaint. Based on CNRR’s experience in 2024, the asylum applicants they assisted did not face obstacles when appealing a decision. The communication received by applicants includes details about the decision, the deadline for filing a complaint, and the competent court, all translated into a language the applicant is presumed to understand. In 2024, the average processing time for the reviewing body to make a decision was between one and three months, although some cases took up to four months (for both instances).[64] In 2025, asylum applicants who received legal counselling from CNRR filed their complaints within the legal deadline and did not encounter issues in this regard.[65]
A systemic issue identified by UNHCR concerns the quality of legal assistance provided by court-appointed (ex officio) lawyers. In practice, lawyers do not consistently assist applicants throughout the entire procedure, as they may be replaced during the process. In addition, many lack specialized training in asylum law. As such, the overall quality of representation is considered low.
A good practice observed by UNHCR in certain jurisdictions, consists of Deans of county Bar Associations appointing lawyers who have informally specialised in asylum cases, which contributes to improved quality in those courts. No dedicated training for ex officio lawyers was organised in 2025.
In 2025, UNHCR developed a practical training package for Romanian judges, based on case studies and interactive discussions. The programme was piloted in November 2025 in Radauti (Suceava county), at the request of judges from the northern region of the country. The initiative was designed to complement existing EUAA training activities and avoid duplication. Further sessions are planned for 2026 in other regions.[66]
Asylum applicants who receive a rejection at first instance have the opportunity to file a complaint and have their case moved to the judicial phase. They are informed about this option, given sufficient time, and receive support in submitting their complaint. If necessary, they are assisted by a CNRR legal advisor or a lawyer. However, many asylum applicants do not reach this stage of the process either because they receive a favourable decision or because they leave the CRPCSA before a decision is made.[67]
Appeal before the Regional Court
The Regional Court (Judecătoria Secţia Civilă) has jurisdiction in asylum cases, as the first-instance judicial review. The Regional Court rules in a single judge composition. The judges are not specialised in asylum law. UNHCR and CNRR organized seminars for judges in 2024.[68] Although the initiative was met with interest, there remains a strong need for specialized judges. Training for lawyers is planned for 2025, as legal counsellors cannot formally represent asylum applicants and this role may be fulfilled by ex officio bar lawyers who often lack specialization.[69] According to CNRR, judges are not open to attend the training sessions, one of the reasons being the presence of IGI personnel at the sessions.[70]
In 2025, UNHCR developed a practical training package for Romanian judges, based on case studies and interactive discussions. The programme was piloted in November 2025 in Radauti (Suceava county), upon the request of judges from the northern region of the country. The initiative was designed to complement existing EUAA training activities and avoid duplication. Further sessions are planned for 2026 in other regions. No dedicated training for ex officio lawyers was organised in 2025. [71]
The appeals, as well as the other procedural acts regarding the resolution of the appeal, are exempt from legal taxes and legal expenses cannot be demanded.[72]
In 2023, a total of 674 appeals against IGI-DAI decisions were filed before the Regional Courts. In 2024, a total of 616 appeals against IGI-DAI decisions were filed before the Regional Courts.[73] In 2025, according to IGI-DAI, 265 appeals against negative first-instance decisions were lodged.[74]
Time limits
The deadline for lodging an appeal is 10 days from the day the decision was communicated.[75] The appeal has automatic suspensive effect, if it was lodged within the term prescribed by law.[76] Since May 2023, a return decision is issued together with the negative administrative decision in the asylum procedure. If the person wants to file a complaint against the rejection decision, they must also request the suspension of the return decision (see above, Appeal).
The law contains a procedural safeguard in case of appeals lodged after the time limit set out in the law.[77] Therefore, in case of filing the appeal or onward appeal after the deadline, the applicant may request the suspension of the execution of the return decision. The request for suspension shall be settled within 7 days from its registration, by the competent court, which shall pronounce the decision in the council chamber, without the parties being summoned, by an irrevocable decision.[78] While the review is pending, the applicant cannot be removed from the country.[79]
If the court admits the request to suspend the execution of the removal decision, the foreigner has the right to remain in the country pending the outcome of the request for reinstatement of the legal term to appeal.[80] The foreigner will benefit from all the rights provided by Articles 17 and 18 of the Asylum Act from the moment the court admits the request for reinstatement of the legal term to appeal.[81]
The appeal has to be motivated in fact and in law.[82] It may be lodged at IGI-DAI, which has issued the decision or directly to the competent court.[83] The appeal has to be accompanied by a copy of the IGI-DAI decision and other documents or elements on which the appeal is based.[84] The court carries out an assessment of both points of facts and law. The decision of the first instance court incorporates the reasons in fact and law on which it is based.[85]
In general, there are no problems in appealing a decision, if asylum applicants consult the legal counsellor of an NGO.[86] In Bucharest, when communicating the decision, IGI-DAI also provides the asylum applicant with the postal address of the Romanian National Council for Refugees (CNRR) in English. Asylum applicants are told by the representative of IGI-DAI who communicates the decision that they have to go to CNRR for legal counselling and assistance for lodging an appeal. This practice has been in place since 2017.
Article 62 of the Asylum Act provides that asylum cases should be dealt with priority before other civil matters.[87] The court should take a decision on the appeal within 30 days.[88] The court has to motivate its decision within 5 days of it being pronounced.[89]
In 2023, IGI-DAI statistics indicate that on average, appeal procedures lasted 60 days. In 2024, IGI-DAI statistics indicate that on average, appeal procedures lasted 60 days.[90] In 2025, according to IGI-DAI, the average duration of the appeal procedure was 2 months.[91]
Hearing
The law establishes that the court may order the hearing of the asylum applicant when it considers that it is useful to settle the case.[92]
There is no updated information available for 2024 regarding the number or scheduling of hearings in appeal procedures; the courts did not provide any further data following the 2023 reporting period. The only information provided for 2024 was from the Bucharest Bar, where they had 151 requests for legal assistance.[93] For 2025, no information on hearings in appeal procedures was available. The Maramureș Bar Association indicated that it does not collect such data,[94] while other Bar Associations (Bucharest, Galați, Giurgiu, Suceava and Timișoara) and the National Institute for the Training and Improvement of Lawyers (INPPA) did not provide information.
At the national level, there is a court portal available online,[95] and since 2022 asylum cases registered at the Regional Courts (Giurgiu, Rădăuţi, Giurgiu, Timișoara, Baia Mare, Galaţi, and Bucharest) are no longer published on it.
According to Law No. 122/2006, and in line with the confidentiality of asylum procedures, case files uploaded to the national electronic system are not public. In practice, neither the General Inspectorate for Immigration nor the applicants themselves have direct access to these files without prior approval.
The practice shows that with no support from NGOs or attorneys, it is impossible for asylum applicants to find out the decision of the appeal courts. In certain instances, even for the NGO representatives and attorneys it is a hurdle. This has a direct effect on their access to onward appeal. Thus, in order to learn the decision of the court, the legal counsellor has to go or call the Court’s Registry.
Onward appeal
In 2023, according to the information provided by the courts, the number of appeals was 354. For 2024, no information was provided from the Courts. No updated data on onward appeals was available for 2025.
The law prescribes the possibility to appeal the decision of the Regional Court.[96] The competent court is the County Tribunal, Administrative Litigation Section (Administrative County Court), which has jurisdiction over the area of the Regional Court whose decision is appealed.[97] The Administrative County Court is composed of three judges. The onward appeal has to be lodged within 5 days from the day the Regional Court decision was pronounced and has automatic suspensive effect, if it is lodged in due time.[98]
In 2023, IGI-DAI reported that onward appeals had an average duration of 3 months.[99] No information on 2024 was provided. No information on the average duration of onward appeals was available for 2025.
The onward appeal does not look at facts but examines if the appealed decision is compliant with the applicable rules.[100] As a consequence, the onward appeal has to include the grounds for illegality on which the appeal is based.[101] The decision has to be motivated within 10 days from the day it is communicated by the Regional Court.
According to the Civil Procedure Code, the attorney who has represented or assisted the party during the hearing may, even without a mandate, take any action for the preservation of rights subject to a term and appeal against the judgment, that may be lost by failing to do so on time. In these cases, only the party will handle all the procedural documents. The support of the appeal can only be based on a new power of attorney.[102]
Therefore, attorneys can appeal the Regional Court decision even without a mandate in this regard, in order to preserve the rights of their client, which are subject to a term and will otherwise be lost by failure to act in time. The provision emphasises that the attorney may also appeal against a judgment without having a mandate. It also mentions that a new power of attorney is needed for representing/ arguing the appeal in the higher court. Therefore, the law makes a difference between declaring/filing an appeal and representing/arguing it.
Decisions
According to statistics provided by the courts, in 2023, a total of 272 decisions were issued. No information on the number of decisions issued by the courts in onward appeal procedures was available for 2024 and 2025.
Legal assistance
According to Article 17(1)(e) of the Asylum Act, the asylum applicant has the right to counselling and assistance from a representative of a Romanian or foreign NGO, in any phase of the asylum procedure. The asylum applicant has the right to be given, upon request, legal and procedural information, including information on the first instance procedure, in line with the provisions on public judicial assistance in civil matters, taking into account their personal situation.[103]
The law sets out the right of the asylum applicant to be provided, upon request, according to the legislation on public judicial assistance in civil matters and taking into account the personal situation of the foreigner, information on the motivation of the rejection of the asylum application, the procedure for challenging the ordinance through which the measure of placement in a specially closed space was taken, as well as the possibility to challenge the decision which granted, reduced or withdraw the material reception conditions.[104]
Legal assistance at first instance
There are no restrictions or conditions for accessing legal counselling at first instance.
In the administrative phase of the procedure, free legal counselling and assistance is provided by NGOs through projects funded by the national Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) scheme and UNHCR Romania. The Romanian National Council for Refugees (CNRR) provides specialised legal counselling and assistance to all asylum applicants upon request in the 6 Regional Centres for Accommodation and Procedures for Asylum applicants, through a project funded by the national Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) program. CNRR’s legal counsellors have an office in the regional centres where they are available every weekday for 8 hours per day. In 2025, CNRR’s legal counsellors were available every weekday for 8 hours per day.[105]
IGI-DAI stated that they did not have information on the total number of legal assistance requests submitted by applicants for international protection in 2024 in the context of the first instance procedure, nor on the breakdown of these requests by type of procedure (regular procedure, accelerated procedure, border procedure, Dublin procedure) or by outcome (granting or refusal of legal assistance) for each type of procedure.[106] No information on legal assistance requests at first instance was provided by IGI-DAI for 2025.
In 2025, the Maramureș Bar Association indicated that it does not currently have the institutional mechanisms or resources required to collect and centralise data on legal aid requests submitted by applicants for international protection. Consequently, it was not able to provide statistical information on the number of requests, their distribution by type of procedure, or their outcomes for the year 2025.[107] In addition, the Bar Associations of Bucharest, Galați, Giurgiu, Suceava and Timișoara, as well as the National Institute for the Training and Improvement of Lawyers (INPPA), did not provide information. Therefore, no input or data from these institutions is available for the 2025 reporting period.
According to the Bucharest Bar Association, 151 requests for legal assistance were submitted by applicants seeking international protection during the first-instance procedure in 2024.[108]
Through the “Advocacy for access to the territory, information regarding international protection, child protection and refugee integration” project, implemented by CNRR, UNHCR Romania has the possibility to grant lawyers’ fees for asylum applicants and beneficiaries of international protection, based on their vulnerability, complexity or strategic interest for advocacy campaigns. Through this project, 14 attorneys’ fees were awarded in 2022.[109] Between 2023 and 2025, CNRR continued with the implementation of the project and provided advice and information to asylum applicants and migrants who met the conditions for submitting a new asylum application. Concerning the procedure, it assisted in the drafting and submission of procedural documents and provided legal assistance in court through specialised lawyers. CNRR also provided legal assistance in court through lawyers to beneficiaries of international protection when their rights were violated. In this respect, in 2023 CNRR awarded a total of 24 fees to lawyers in this project: specifically, 21 fees on Output I – Access to territory (in the asylum procedure and for access to a new asylum procedure) and 3 fees on Output 3 – Child protection (in the asylum procedure). In 2023, 18 lawyers were remunerated for legal advice/assistance activities.[110] No updated information was available for 2024. In 2025, CNRR reported that 77 lawyers were remunerated for providing legal assistance under the project.[111]
Legal representation by a lawyer under the Legal Aid Act includes representation in the administrative phase of the procedure.[112] According to Article 35 of the Legal Aid Act, legal aid may also be extra-judicial and consist in consultations, filing of applications, petitions, referrals, initiation of other related legal steps, as well as representation before public authorities or institutions other than judicial or with jurisdictional powers, with a view to achieving the individual’s legitimate rights or interests. This was confirmed by the National Union of Romanian Bar Associations.[113] However, according to the head of the Judicial Assistance Service at the Bucharest Bar Association no legal aid applications for representation in the administrative phase of the procedure had been lodged until now in any of the regional centres.
In all other cases, the asylum applicant has to pay the lawyer’s fee if they wish to be represented by a lawyer during the personal interview.
According to CNRR, in 2024, as in previous years, applications for public legal aid were accepted, and asylum applicants were assigned an ex officio lawyer. These lawyers may have experience in asylum law (including those from the CNRR network) or may be trainee lawyers. No documentation was required to verify the applicant’s income. Asylum applicants reported that one issue with ex officio lawyers was the lack of interaction before the court hearing, and the lawyers appeared unfamiliar with the case and provided superficial assistance.[114] JRS representatives in Galati noted that a limitation on legal assistance for asylum applicants is the duration of the projects that fund this support. Asylum applicants receive legal aid through NGOs that implement such projects.
According to CNRR, in 2025, there were no asylum applicants who benefitted from public legal aid at first instance in the form of extrajudicial assistance provided by a lawyer designated by the Bar (for example, to be assisted at the interview for determining a form of protection). Asylum applicants whose asylum applications were rejected were advised by the legal advisors of the CNRR regarding the reasons for rejecting the asylum application, the deadline for exercising the appeal, the court entrusted with resolving the complaint, the possibility of benefiting from an ex officio lawyer (or chosen in situations where the case is susceptible to positive jurisprudence or the applicant is a vulnerable person within the meaning of art. 51 paragraph (2) of Law 122/2006). For applicants who filed a complaint against the rejection decision and requested public legal aid, the Bar (following the address submitted by the Judges) appointed an ex officio lawyer. The lawyers were both trainees (only to assist applicants in first Court) and permanent (in both first and second Court). The problems that asylum applicants declare and bring to CNRR’s attention, regarding ex officio lawyers, are related to the fact that they meet with the lawyer only at the Court and, therefore, the lawyers do not have the opportunity to know and study the file thoroughly. Another reported problem is the fact that some ex officio lawyers, appointed in asylum cases, are not specialized in this field.[115] No information was available in 2025 on how legal counselling will be organised under the future Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR) in Romania.
Legal assistance in appeals
In court proceedings, legal aid may only be provided by CNRR, who have limited funds for legal representation.
As in previous years, in 2023 CNRR collaborated with lawyers to provide legal assistance to asylum applicants. Legal assistance was not provided at the administrative phase of the asylum procedure before the IGI-DAI, instead it was ensured during the legal phase at courts that have competencies in the asylum procedure: 60 lawyers ensured legal assistance in first instance and 40 lawyers in the appeal. According to CNRR, in 2023 there were cases where asylum applicants stated that the legal assistance provided by the ex officio lawyers was superficial, with applicants claiming that the lawyers did not discuss their case with them or did not show a willingness to know their situation thoroughly. In some cases, the ex officio lawyers did not perform the necessary procedure to file an appeal within the time limit provided by the law.[116] Other information on legal assistance and lawyers was not provided by organisations and institutions. No updated information was available for 2024. In 2025, legal assistance at the appeal stage continued to be provided mainly through ex officio lawyers appointed by the Bar. According to CNRR, while asylum applicants assisted by the organisation were able to submit appeals within the legal time limits, concerns persisted regarding the quality of legal assistance, including limited preparation of cases and lack of specialisation among some lawyers.[117]
[1] ibid. Article 52(4).
[2] ibid. Article 52(2).
[3] ibid. Article 52(3).
[4] ibid. Article 52(5).
[5] ibid. Article 52(6).
[6] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 23 January 2025.
[7] ibid., 02 March 2026.
[8] ibid.
[9] Information provided by CNRR in February 2025.
[10] Information provided by JRS representative in Galati in February 2025.
[11] Information provided by CNRR, 03 February 2026.
[12] Article 16(1) Asylum Act.
[13] ibid. Article 16(2).
[14] ibid. Article 19^11.
[15] Information provided by CNRR, 7 February 2023 and February 2025.
[16] ibid.
[17] ibid., 03 February 2026.
[18] Information provided by UNHCR, 13 March 2026.
[19] Article 19^6(2) Asylum Act.
[20] ibid. Article 45(3).
[21] ibid. Article 48.
[22] ibid. 23 January 2025.
[23] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 02 March 2026.
[24] Information provided by JRS Romania, April 2026.
[25] EUAA, Evaluation Report – Operational Support to Romania 2023–2024, June 2025, available here.
[26] European Union Agency for Asylum, Country overview 2025 – Romania, February 2025, available here.
[27] Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.
[28] ibid.
[29] Information provided by CNRR in February 2025.
[30] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of Romania, CRC/C/ROU/CO/6-7, 5 June 2025, available here.
[31] Information provided by CNRR in February 2025.
[32] ibid., 03 February 2026.
[33] ibid., February 2025.
[34] ibid.
[35] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of Romania, CRC/C/ROU/CO/6-7, 5 June 2025, available here.
[36] Information provided by UNHCR, 13 March 2026.
[37] Operational plan 2025-2026 Agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Romania, available here.
[38] Article 45(2) Asylum Act.
[39] Order no. 2907/C/2340/2020, available in Romanian here.
[40] ibid.
[41] Law no. 178/1997 for the authorization and payment of interpreters and translators, available in Romanian here.
[42] Information provided by CNRR, 16 January 2024.
[43] ibid., 03 February 2026.
[44] ibid., 16 January 2024.
[45] ibid., April 2026.
[46] Meeting with CNRR during ECRE fact-finding visit to Romania, 17 March 2025.
[47] Information provided by CNRR in February 2025.
[48] Meeting with CNRR during ECRE fact-finding visit to Romania, 17 March 2025.
[49] Information provided by CNRR, 03 February 2026.
[50] Information provided by JRS Representative in Galati in February 2025.
[51] Article 231(4) Civil Procedure Code: The court will record the court hearings. If the parties are challenging the content of the clerk’s notes, it will be verified and, if necessary, supplemented or rectified based on the records of the court hearing.
[52] Information provided by CNRR in February 2025.
[53] Article 45(5) Asylum Act.
[54] ibid. Article 45(7).
[55] ibid. Article 45(6).
[56] ibid. Article 45(8).
[57] ibid. Article 45(9).
[58] ibid. Article 45(10).
[59] ibid. Article 54(1).
[60] ibid. Article 54(1^1).
[61] ibid. Article 54(1).
[62] CNRR, Input by civil society organisations to the Asylum Report 2024, 2023, available here.
[63] Information provided by CNRR, April 2026.
[64] Information provided by CNRR in February 2025.
[65] ibid., 03 February 2026.
[66] Information provided by UNHCR, 13 March 2026.
[67] Information provided by JRS Galati in February 2025.
[68] Information provided by UNHCR in March 2025.
[69] Meeting with UNHCR during ECRE fact-finding visit to Romania, 19 March 2025.
[70] Meeting with CNRR during ECRE fact-finding visit to Romania, 17 March 2025.
[71] Information provided by UNHCR, March 2026.
[72] Article 65 Asylum Act.
[73] ibid. 23 January 2025.
[74] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 02 March 2026.
[75] Article 55(1) Asylum Act.
[76] ibid. Article 55(2).
[77] ibid. Article 69.
[78] ibid. Article 69(1).
[79] ibid. Article 69(2).
[80] ibid. Article 69(3).
[81] ibid. Article 69(4).
[82] ibid. Article 57(1)(c).
[83] ibid. Article 56.
[84] ibid. Articles 56(1) and 57.
[85] Article 425(b) Civil Code.
[86] Information provided by CNRR, 9 January 2018.
[87] Article 62(1) Asylum Act.
[88] ibid. Article 64(2).
[89] ibid. Article 64(3).
[90] ibid. 23 January 2025.
[91] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 23 February 2026.
[92] Article 63 Asylum Act.
[93] Information provided by Bucharest Bar, 16 February 2021.
[94] Information provided by the Maramures Bar Association in March 2026.
[95] Ministry of Justice, Portalu linstanţelor de judecată, available in Romanian here.
[96] Article 66 Asylum Act.
[97] ibid. Article 67.
[98] ibid. Article 66(2) and (4).
[99] Information provided by IGI-DAI, February 2024.
[100] Article 483(3) Civil Procedure Code.
[101] ibid. Article 486(1)(d).
[102] ibid. Article 87(2)(3).
[103] Article 17(1)(s) Asylum Act.
[104] ibid.
[105] Information provided by CNRR, April 2026.
[106] Information provided by IGI, January 2025.
[107] Information provided by the Maramures Bar Association in March 2026.
[108] Information provided by the Bucharest Bar Association in January 2025.
[109] Information provided by CNRR, 7 February 2023.
[110] ibid. 16 January 2024.
[111] Information provided by the Maramures Bar Association in March 2026.
[112] Government Emergency Ordinance 51/2008.
[113] Information provided by the National Union of Romanian Bar Associations, 8 January 2018.
[114] Information provided by CNRR, February 2025.
[115] Information provided by CNRR, 03 February 2026.
[116] ibid., 16 January 2024.
[117] ibid., 03 February 2026.