After you file a petition, two things matter most: that it is taken into account and that you receive an answer within the legal deadline. However, Government Ordinance (OG) no. 27/2002 also sets out a number of “internal procedural” rules that can make the difference between a petition that is handled properly and one that is dismissed, consolidated with others, or legitimately delayed.
Below is a plain-language explanation of what OG 27/2002 says about: anonymous petitions, the harassment exception, extending the response deadline, consolidating repetitive petitions, impartial handling, and who must sign the reply.
- Anonymous petitions: the general rule
The law provides that anonymous petitions, or petitions that do not include the petitioner’s identification details, are not taken into consideration and are filed/dismissed.
In other words, if you want your complaint to be examined, it must include information that identifies you. Otherwise, the institution may close it procedurally without addressing the merits.
- The key exception: sex-based harassment and moral harassment
There is an important exception: the above rule does not apply to anonymous petitions (or those without identification details) that concern:
- sex-based harassment, or
- moral harassment.
These complaints are not “thrown away” simply because they are anonymous. They follow a separate review process.
- How anonymous harassment complaints are reviewed
OG 27/2002 provides that such petitions are reviewed by:
- the responsible designated person, or
- as the case may be, the Commission for receiving and handling harassment cases, in accordance with the special methodology approved by Government decision on preventing and combating sex-based harassment and moral harassment.
In practice, the institution is required to handle this type of complaint through dedicated mechanisms and a formalized process.
- When criminal authorities must be notified
If, following the review, it results that the facts may meet the elements of a criminal offence (for example, sexual harassment, sexual assault, or abuse of office for sexual purposes, as defined by criminal law), the responsible person or the chair of the commission must promptly notify the criminal investigation authorities, in accordance with the criminal procedure rules.
Important: at this point, we are no longer dealing with a simple “administrative petition,” but with a mechanism that can trigger criminal proceedings when the indications justify it.
- Extending the response deadline: when it is possible and by how much
The general rule is to respond within the standard deadline (30 days), but OG 27/2002 allows an extension when the situation requires more thorough information-gathering and investigation.
In such cases, the head of the institution may extend the deadline:
- by up to 15 days, and
- in the field of energy and natural gas, by up to 30 days, provided that the petitioner is notified in advance.
So the extension should not come “out of the blue”: the law requires prior notice to the petitioner.
- What happens if you submit multiple petitions about the same issue
OG 27/2002 expressly addresses repetitive petitions:
- if the same petitioner submits multiple petitions to the same institution regarding the same issue, they are consolidated, and the petitioner receives a single reply that must refer to all petitions received;
- if, after the institution has replied, it receives another petition with the same content, it is filed/dismissed, with a note (under the initial registration number) that a reply has already been provided.
In short: repeating the same complaint does not force the institution to restart the analysis indefinitely; there is a consolidation procedure, and then duplicates are filed after a response has been issued.
- The impartiality rule: the petition cannot be handled by the person concerned
If a petition raises issues regarding the activity of a particular person, that person cannot handle the petition:
- personally, or
- through one of their subordinates.
This is a basic safeguard of objectivity: the person directly concerned cannot control the outcome.
- Assignment and the ban on handling petitions outside the official process
The law establishes a clear internal workflow:
- petitions are assigned to specialized staff by the head of the department to which the petition was forwarded;
- civil servants and contractual staff must handle only those petitions assigned through the official process;
- they are prohibited from receiving petitions directly from petitioners, intervening, or exerting pressure to solve them outside the legal procedure.
The message is simple: petitions must be handled through the institutional process set by law, not through informal channels.
- Who signs the response and what it must include
The response must be signed by:
- the head of the institution (or a person authorized by them), and
- the head of the department that handled the petition.
In addition, the reply must obligatorily indicate the legal basis for the solution adopted. In other words, the institution should not issue an “opinion-based” response, but a legally grounded one.
Conclusion
OG 27/2002 does not establish only deadlines, but also “procedural hygiene” rules for petitions: as a rule, anonymous petitions are filed/dismissed, but there is a major exception for harassment complaints, which must be reviewed through dedicated mechanisms and may lead—if there are indications—to notifying criminal authorities. The response deadline can be extended only under strict conditions, repetitive petitions are consolidated or filed after a reply, and the handling must be impartial and follow the legal workflow, with a reply that is signed and supported by the relevant legal basis.
If you have a specific situation (for example, your petition was dismissed as “anonymous,” you received a deadline-extension notice, you received a reply without a legal basis, or you suspect a lack of impartiality), it can be useful to speak with a lawyer specialized in administrative law to decide the next steps.
EN 
RO