You Lost Your Passport. The Police Refuse Your Report. Welcome to Romania.
When “Not Our Jurisdiction” Becomes the Default Answer
It happens far more often than it should, and not only with passports. Lose your wallet, your ID, or any personal document while travelling to another Romanian city—Bucharest, Cluj, Timișoara, Brașov—and you are likely to face the same response once you return home: the local police station refuses to take your report.
In a country where travelling by train from Cluj-Napoca to Iași can take up to 18 hours, being told to “just go back to the city where you lost it” is not a minor inconvenience—it is a serious practical problem.
The reasoning is always the same, and always delivered with disarming simplicity:
“You probably lost it somewhere else. You must report it there.”
In practice, this means that if you live in Sibiu but discovered the loss after returning from a short trip, the Sibiu police may decline to register the loss and instruct you to travel back to the city where the loss allegedly occurred—even when:
- the exact place of loss is unknown,
- the loss was only discovered later,
- there is no suspicion of theft,
- and no investigation is being requested.
This is not an isolated misunderstanding or an unlucky encounter with a single officer. It is a recurrent administrative pattern, widely reported among expatriates and foreign residents: local police stations use territorial competence as a convenient pretext to avoid registering a simple declaration of loss.
The absurdity becomes evident when applied to real life. People travel. Documents are used across cities. Losses are often discovered hours or days later. Expecting residents—especially working professionals or foreign nationals—to retrace their steps across the country simply to file a basic report is not just impractical; it is administrative deflection disguised as procedure.
Even more problematic, this refusal places the individual in a legal limbo. Many authorities—embassies, immigration offices, banks—require a police loss report as a prerequisite for replacement or protection against misuse. When the local police refuse to issue it, the burden is silently shifted onto the individual, who is left navigating contradictory expectations between institutions.
In short, what should be a routine administrative act is transformed into an obstacle course—one justified not by law, but by convenience.
A Real Case: How Responsibility Is Pushed Away Until You Give Up
Let me describe a concrete episode, because this is not a theoretical problem.
One day last year, my wife J. lost her wallet while returning home from work in Bucharest. Like in most real-life situations, she did not notice the loss immediately and could not identify a precise place where it happened. It could have been while walking from her workplace toward Piața Presei Libere, or while travelling on tram 41. There was no theft, no violence, no suspect—just a lost wallet.
We did exactly what any reasonable person would do: we went to our local police station, Secția 21 – București, to file a loss report.
While explaining the situation, my wife mentioned—correctly and transparently—that she might have lost the wallet on the tram. That single detail immediately changed the attitude of the officer. The conversation stopped being about recording a loss and turned into a jurisdictional escape exercise. We were told, bluntly, that because she had been on a tram, the complaint had to be filed with the Transport Police.
This is where the logic collapses.
At that moment:
- The exact place of loss was unknown
- The loss could just as easily have occurred on the street
- No investigation was being requested
- We were not accusing anyone
- We were simply asking for a formal declaration of loss
Still, the officer tried to send us away.
Only after insisting—politely but firmly—did they agree to take the complaint. At that point, one might assume the matter was settled. It was not.
About a month later, we received a registered letter informing us that the case had been transferred to the Transport Police. No discussion. No request for clarification. No option. Just a bureaucratic handoff designed to move the problem elsewhere.
The end result?
We had to cross the city and go to a completely different police unit, wasting additional time and energy, to repeat a process that should have been handled locally from the start.
This case illustrates the real issue very clearly: the system is not designed to help you complete a legal obligation; it is designed to help offices avoid responsibility. Any detail—even a hypothetical one—can be used as an excuse to redirect you, delay the process, or push you toward another institution.
For a Western European professional, this is not just frustrating; it is incomprehensible. A loss declaration is not an investigation. It is not a criminal complaint. It is a basic administrative act. Yet, in practice, it becomes a ping-pong game between institutions, until the citizen—or expat—simply gives up.
And this is precisely why so many people stop insisting, stop reporting, and quietly adapt to dysfunction.
Is There a Law That Says Where You Must File a Loss Complaint?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: and this is precisely the problem.
There is no Romanian law that obliges a person to file a loss report only with the police unit “competent” for the place where the loss allegedly occurred—especially when that place is uncertain, hypothetical, or discovered only after the fact.
Romanian legislation distinguishes clearly between criminal acts (such as theft) and administrative facts (such as loss). A loss (“pierdere”) is not a crime. It does not trigger an investigation. It does not require territorial competence in the criminal-law sense. It is simply a declaration of fact, made so that the loss is officially recorded and the document can be invalidated or replaced.
Yet, in practice, police stations often behave as if a loss declaration were a criminal complaint—and then use territorial jurisdiction as a reason to refuse it.
What the law actually regulates—and what it does not
Romanian law and administrative regulations:
- Require lost or stolen documents to be declared, in order to prevent misuse and allow replacement.
- Do not define a mandatory police unit where a loss must be reported.
- Do not condition the validity of a loss declaration on the exact location of the loss.
In fact, many official procedures implicitly assume that the declaration can be made where the person is present or resides, because:
- losses are often discovered later,
- the exact place is frequently unknown,
- and mobility is a normal part of modern life.
If lawmakers had intended to impose a strict territorial rule for losses, it would be explicitly stated. It is not.
Territorial competence: a concept taken out of context
“Territorial competence” makes sense for:
- crimes,
- investigations,
- suspects,
- evidence gathering.
It makes no sense for a simple declaration that says:
“I no longer have this document. Please record that fact.”
Applying territorial logic to a loss declaration is a category error—and a convenient one. It allows a police unit to say “not our problem” without citing any legal article, because there is none.
This is why, when pressed, officers rarely quote a specific law. Instead, you hear vague statements:
- “That’s the procedure”
- “You must go where it happened”
- “We don’t handle those cases”
None of these are legal grounds. They are administrative habits.
The practical contradiction
Ironically, other Romanian authorities:
- Immigration offices,
- Embassies,
- Banks,
- Public administrations,
accept loss reports issued by any police unit, without questioning territorial competence. This alone demonstrates that the system itself does not treat location as a legal condition for validity.
So we end up with a paradox:
- There is no law imposing territorial restrictions for loss declarations.
- But some police units enforce such restrictions anyway.
- And the burden of this contradiction falls entirely on the citizen or expat.
The real issue: discretion without accountability
When there is no clear legal prohibition, refusal becomes a matter of discretion. And discretion, without accountability, is where abuse quietly thrives.
The result is predictable:
- inconsistent practice,
- arbitrary refusals,
- and a system where the outcome depends less on the law and more on how persistent you are—or how tired the officer feels that day.
For Western European expats used to predictable administrative behavior, this is not a minor inconvenience. It is a structural flaw: a gap between written law and daily practice, filled not by rules, but by avoidance.
So, What Can You Actually Do in This Situation?
Once you understand that the refusal is not based on a clear legal rule, the strategy changes. The goal is no longer to “ask nicely”, but to force the system to behave correctly while minimizing wasted time and energy.
Below are the only approaches that work in practice, ordered from least to most confrontational.
1. Insist on a loss declaration, not a “complaint”
Words matter in Romania.
Make it explicit—calmly and repeatedly—that you are not filing a criminal complaint, but a declaration of loss (declarație de pierdere). You are not asking for:
- an investigation,
- territorial competence,
- or police action.
You are asking for a written record of a fact.
This distinction removes, at least in theory, the officer’s favourite escape route. If they still refuse, ask a very simple question:
“Which article of the law forbids you from registering a declaration of loss here?”
In most cases, there is no answer—only discomfort.
2. Ask for the refusal in writing
If the police station refuses to register the loss, request a written refusal stating:
- the reason for refusal,
- the legal basis,
- the name and rank of the officer.
This is a critical moment. Many refusals disappear instantly when officers realise they may have to sign their decision. Oral refusals are easy; written ones create traceability.
If they refuse even this, make a note of:
- date and time,
- police station,
- names (or at least badge numbers),
- and what was said.
This documentation matters later.
3. Go to another police station (yes, really)
Unpleasant as it sounds, practice varies wildly between stations—and even between officers in the same station.
There is nothing illegal about:
- going to another station in the same city,
- or reporting the loss in the city where you are currently present.
Many expats eventually learn this the hard way: mobility beats principle when dealing with inconsistent administration. The loss report is valid nationwide, regardless of where it is issued.
4. Use the report you have—or the refusal you got—with other authorities
Here is the uncomfortable truth:
Immigration offices and embassies are often more reasonable than police stations.
If you have:
- a loss report from any police unit, or
- proof that the police refused to register it,
present that documentation to:
- your embassy or consulate (for passport replacement),
- the General Inspectorate for Immigration (IGI),
- or other authorities involved.
In many cases, they are aware of these police practices and will proceed anyway.
5. Escalate formally (only if you have the energy)
If you want to push back—and sometimes it is worth it—you have two realistic escalation paths:
- File a complaint with the police inspectorate superior to the local station (Inspectoratul de Poliție).
- Address the Romanian Ombudsman (Avocatul Poporului), citing refusal to perform an administrative duty.
This will not fix the system overnight, but it creates institutional noise, and noise is often the only language bureaucracies respond to.
6. Adjust expectations—and protect yourself
This is the hardest part to accept.
In Romania, the system often does not reward correctness; it rewards persistence, flexibility, and documentation. As an expat, your priority should be:
- getting a paper trail,
- protecting yourself against misuse of documents,
- and moving forward with replacements.
Fighting every refusal on principle is emotionally exhausting. Choose your battles—but do not internalize the dysfunction as “normal”.
The uncomfortable conclusion
There is no magic procedure that guarantees compliance, because the problem is not legal—it is cultural and administrative. The law leaves room for common sense; practice fills that space with avoidance.
Knowing this in advance does not make the experience pleasant, but it does give you one crucial advantage: you stop blaming yourself for a system that is not designed to work smoothly.
And for Western European professionals living in Romania, that awareness is not cynicism—it is survival.
This article is part of our practical hub for Western European professionals living in Romania, where we document real-world interactions with public authorities, legal gray areas, and administrative practices that often differ from written law. For more case-based explanations and guidance, see our main hub: Living in Romania – A Practical Guide for Expats.