Specialist literature usually stops at the moment the case is won. In reality, that is where the second procedure begins, with its own time limits, traps and logic. And interest is never granted of its own motion.
The judgment is final. The tax assessment decision (decizie de impunere) for 600,000 lei has been annulled. You paid the amount four years ago, under threat of garnishment, so that you could keep your business running. You ask for it back, and 45 days later you receive a decision informing you that the amount has been set off against other tax obligations, and the actual amount refunded is 3,000 lei. It says nothing about interest, because you did not ask for it.
This article deals exclusively with this second stage: what you ask for, in what order, and what irreversible choices you make without realising it.
Annulment of a tax administrative act has retroactive effect: the act is treated as if it had never existed, and the parties must be restored to their previous position. In practice, three distinct consequences, obtained through three different steps.
(i) Amounts paid under the annulled act become amounts paid without being owed and must be refunded. (ii) Late-payment charges (accesorii: interest and penalties) calculated on the annulled claim also fall away, as accessories of a non-existent obligation. (iii) Precautionary measures, garnishments and seizures lose their basis and must be lifted.
None of this happens automatically. A court judgment does not enforce itself, a reality that constantly surprises people, after years of litigation conducted through the action for annulment.
The rule is set out in Article 168(1) of the Tax Procedure Code: ”Any amount paid or collected without being owed shall be refunded, on request, to the taxpayer/payer.” The word that matters is on request.
With two limited exceptions, there is no such thing as a refund of its own motion: income-tax differences arising from the annual reconciliation (refunded within at most 60 days of communication of the tax assessment decision) and amounts collected by garnishment in excess of the claims for which the garnishment was put in place, refunded within at most 5 working days of collection (Article 168(4)).
The time limit for resolving it is the general one under Article 77 of the Tax Procedure Code: 45 days from registration, extendable under paragraph (2), where further information is needed. The request is filed with the competent tax authority, accompanied by the final judgment and proof of payment.
With the “final” endorsement, from the court.
Payment orders, statements, amounts collected by garnishment, earlier set-offs. The taxpayer statement of account in the SPV is the starting point, not the final proof.
Identifying each amount and each payment date individually, the payment date is essential for the interest.
In the same request. It is not optional, it is mandatory, if you want to receive it.
Separately: lifting the precautionary measures and stopping the garnishments.
Exceeding them opens up the administrative-litigation action for unjustified refusal.
Article 168(8) of the Tax Procedure Code: ”Where the taxpayer/payer has outstanding obligations, the refund/reimbursement shall be made only after set-off has been carried out under this Code.”
And paragraphs (9) to (10): if the amount to be refunded is smaller than the outstanding obligations, the set-off is made up to the amount to be refunded, so you receive nothing; if it is larger, the set-off is made up to the outstanding obligations, and the difference is refunded. The consequence: you win the case, but if in the meantime you have run up other tax debts, current VAT, contributions, corporate income tax, the amount you won goes towards them. This is not unlawful; it is the statutory mechanism (Article 167 of the Tax Procedure Code).
What can be done, in practice: check the statement of account first, before requesting a refund; if you appear to have outstanding obligations that are contested or wrong, clear them first; challenge any unlawful set-off, one carried out against obligations that are not certain, liquid and due, or against time-barred obligations; note the exception: amounts transferred by mistake by credit institutions, non-repayable grants, funding for programmes and projects, and the amounts under Article 729(7) of the Civil Procedure Code are refunded even if you have outstanding obligations (Article 168(12)).
Even when the set-off “swallows” the refund, interest remains owed: Article 182(2) refers to interest up to the day of the refund or the set-off. The set-off does not take away your right to interest, but, again, it must be claimed.
The rate. Article 182(4) of the Tax Procedure Code: “The interest rate is the one set out in Article 174(5)”, that is, 0.02% per day, the same rate that you owe the state. An honest point needs making: the interest rate is symmetrical. The asymmetry lies in the structure of the late-payment charges. A taxpayer who is late owes interest of 0.02%/day plus a late-payment penalty of 0.01%/day (and, in the cases provided by law, a non-declaration penalty). A state that is late owes only the interest. There is no “late-payment penalty for the state”. The real ratio is, therefore, around 0.03%/day one way against 0.02%/day the other, and with the non-declaration penalty, the gap grows substantially.
When it starts to run. Here Romanian law is, in fact, favourable, but many taxpayers do not use it. Article 182(2) of the Tax Procedure Code: for claims arising from the annulment of a tax administrative act by which payment obligations were established that were discharged before the annulment, the taxpayer is entitled to interest starting from the day on which discharge took place of the claim identified in the annulled act, until the day of the refund or the set-off. So from the date of payment, not the date of the request.
The text transposes the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Case C-565/11, Mariana Irimie (judgment of 18 April 2013), the CJEU held that EU law precludes a national regime that limits the interest awarded on the refund of a charge levied in breach of EU law to interest running only from the day after the date the refund claim was made. The reasoning: the loss suffered through having the sum frozen begins on the date of payment, and the principle of effectiveness requires full reparation of that loss. For situations outside Article 182(2), for instance refund claims that were refused and then finally allowed, the rule in paragraph (1) applies (interest from the day after the statutory time limit expires), and Irimie remains the argument to raise where the claim is of EU origin, in the logic of invoking EU law in tax litigation.
NOTE: The final sentence of Article 182(1) is categorical: ”Interest shall be awarded on the request of the taxpayer/payer.” Interest is not awarded of its own motion, however obvious the delay and however final the judgment. I have seen files in which hundreds of thousands of lei of principal were recovered and zero lei of interest, for the simple reason that the refund request contained no head of claim for interest.
More serious still: the second sentence of Article 182(2) provides that interest from the date of payment does not apply where the taxpayer has claimed damages under Article 18 of Legea nr. 554/2004 (nor in the situation under Article 107(5) of the Tax Procedure Code). It is a choice, not something that can be combined: either the statutory tax interest, or the damages from litigation. The choice must be made knowingly, before bringing the action, because the 0.02%/day interest is almost automatic, whereas damages must be proved in full.
Limitation of the interest claim. The right to claim interest becomes time-barred after 5 years, the period running from 1 January of the year following the one in which: the amounts to be refunded were discharged; the annulment of the act became final (for the case in paragraph (2)); or the refund was finally allowed (for the case in paragraph (3)), Article 182(5) of the Tax Procedure Code.
A recent exception worth noting. By Decision No. 24/2025 (appeal in the interest of the law, hearing of 24 November 2025), the ÎCCJ held that, for amounts to be refunded arising from the annulment of administrative acts by which budgetary claims resulting from irregularities were imposed (O.U.G. nr. 66/2011, on EU funds and related national public funds), the interest provided for by Article 174 of the Tax Procedure Code is not owed. The decision is limited to the field of irregularities; it does not affect the right to interest for ordinary tax claims. It is, however, a warning that the area of refunds is not uniform.
Precautionary measures are ordered by a reasoned decision, which must state that by providing security at the level of the claim they will be lifted (Article 213(4) to (5) of the Tax Procedure Code). When the claim disappears through annulment, the basis for the measures disappears with it. Note also Article 213(7): if the measures were taken before the title of claim was issued, they cease if the title has not been issued and communicated within at most 6 months (extendable up to one year), and the tax authority must issue the decision lifting them within at most two days of the time limit expiring and release the security.
As regards garnishments: when enforcement is suspended, the enforcement authority is required immediately to notify the credit institutions or the garnishee so that the freeze is stopped (Article 236(17) of the Tax Procedure Code). If it fails to do so, the bank remains obliged to comply, so pressure needs to be put on the tax authority, not on the bank, and the remedy remains the appeal against enforcement.
Article 18(3) of Legea nr. 554/2004 allows the court, on request, also to rule on damages for the material and non-material harm caused. Where annulment was sought without damages, these can be claimed later, through a separate action based on Article 19, conditional on the existence of the annulment judgment. Be realistic: the case law is restrictive, and the burden of proving a loss that is certain and quantified is on you.
Interest and fees paid on a bridge loan taken out to cover the amount enforced; the cost of a guarantee letter provided for a suspension; contractual penalties incurred because accounts were frozen, all supported by documents and an expert report.
A loan refused by the bank (the refusal must be in writing and reasoned by reference to the tax debt recorded in the tax clearance certificate); a lost contract (the offer, the correspondence and the reasons for termination are needed); reputational harm.
Non-material damages of a legal person, and loss of profit calculated on projections.
The practical rule: claim damages only if you have the evidential file built before the action, and if the loss significantly exceeds the 0.02%/day interest you give up under the second sentence of Article 182(2).
Costs are awarded under the general law, on request, to the party who won the case, on proof of payment (lawyer's fees, court fee, expert report). The court may reduce, giving reasons, a fee that is manifestly disproportionate.
The final judgment and the refund decision are enforceable titles, but enforcement against public institutions has a special regime: O.G. nr. 22/2002. Under Article 2, if enforcement does not start or does not continue for lack of funds, the debtor institution must, within 6 months, take the steps necessary to fulfil its payment obligation, a period that runs from the date the debtor receives the payment demand communicated by the competent enforcement authority, at the creditor's request.
Essential: this grace period does not operate automatically. Case law has consistently held that the benefit of the period is conditional on two cumulative proofs, both to be provided by the institution: proof that the voluntary non-performance is genuinely due to a lack of funds, and proof of the concrete steps taken to obtain them. The institution must bring an appeal against enforcement and prove both conditions; a mere assertion of a lack of funds, unreasoned and unproved, does not attract the statutory grace period.
In parallel, exceeding the 45-day time limit under Article 77 of the Tax Procedure Code without the request being resolved opens up the administrative-litigation action for unjustified refusal, requiring the authority to issue the refund decision, and if even that judgment is not complied with, the fine under Article 24 of Legea nr. 554/2004, applied personally to the head of the authority.
Yes, in certain circumstances. The distinction is between annulment and quashing (desființare).
If the court annulled the act for defects going to the merits (the claim does not exist), ANAF cannot reimpose the same obligations for the same period. If, however, the body deciding the administrative appeal quashed the act because the facts could not be established (Article 279(3) of the Tax Procedure Code), ANAF redoes the inspection (Article 129 of the Tax Procedure Code), strictly observing the periods and the reasoning of the quashing decision, through a different inspection team from the one that issued the quashed act. Quashing can be ordered only once for the same type of claim and the same period. The outcome is put into effect within 60 days (large and medium taxpayers) or 30 days (others), and for natural persons subject to a personal tax situation review, within a time limit of at most 240 days.
Note Article 279(7) of the Tax Procedure Code: for quashing decisions, redoing the inspection is possible even if the limitation period would have expired by the date it is redone. And if the annulment resulted from a remediable procedural defect, and limitation of the right to assess tax claims has not expired, the risk of a new assessment exists. This is assessed beforehand, not afterwards.
Limitation of the refund claim. The right to claim a refund becomes time-barred 5 years from 1 January of the year following the one in which the right to a refund arose (Article 219(1) of the Tax Procedure Code). Amounts paid without being owed for which the time limit has expired are written off the tax authority's records, unless a set-off has already taken place.
Yes, if the debts are real and outstanding: the refund is made only after set-off (Article 168(8) to (10) of the Tax Procedure Code). Do check, however, whether the obligations against which it was set off are certain, liquid, due and not time-barred; an unlawful set-off can be challenged. And note: even once set off, the amount entitles you to interest up to the day of the set-off (Article 182(2)).
Where the amount was discharged before the act was annulled, interest runs from the date of discharge, that is, from the payment (Article 182(2) of the Tax Procedure Code). This is the rule, and it reflects the CJEU case law from Case C-565/11 Irimie. Interest must still be claimed, however: it is not awarded of its own motion.
Not cumulatively over the same period. The second sentence of Article 182(2) excludes interest from the date of discharge where you have claimed damages under Article 18 of Legea nr. 554/2004. You must choose, and the choice should be made after assessing the evidence: interest is quasi-automatic, damages must be proved as a certain loss.
You have the administrative-litigation action for unjustified refusal available to you, seeking to have the authority ordered to resolve the request and to pay interest, without a prior complaint, since Article 7(5) of Legea nr. 554/2004 excludes it in cases of silence or refusal. If you already have an unenforced final judgment, the route is enforcement, under the special regime of O.G. nr. 22/2002, where the 6-month period does not operate automatically.
Informative material, updated on 18 July 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts.
If the appeal period is already running, the other analyses on this subject are grouped under tax litigation. For the concrete stages of a dispute, see tax disputes.
Time limits run from the date of communication. A first conversation clarifies what is being alleged, what you need to substantiate and how the defence is built, before an estimate becomes a tax assessment decision.