When an individual files a petition before an Argentine government agency and receives no response within the legally prescribed time limit, the legal system does not leave them in a void. Administrative silence is the mechanism established by the National Administrative Procedures Act (LNPA, Ley 19.549) to assign legal consequences to that failure to issue a decision. Following the reform introduced by Ley 27.742 in 2024, the administrative silence regime changed substantially: the triggering of negative silence was simplified, an intermediate step that burdened the petitioner was eliminated, and a figure previously nonexistent in Argentine federal administrative law was introduced: positive silence. This guide analyzes the current regime, the conditions for each type of silence to apply, and the courses of action available in the face of government inaction.
What is administrative silence
Administrative silence is a legal fiction. It is not an expression of the State's will nor a form of tacit administrative decision-making. Strictly speaking, it is the opposite: the total absence of a pronouncement where one should have been issued.
The constitutional basis of this doctrine lies in the right to petition the authorities enshrined in Article 14 of the Argentine Constitution. That right necessarily implies, as its correlate, the Administration's duty to resolve the petitions submitted to it. When the Administration fails to issue a decision within the applicable time limit, it breaches that duty. Administrative silence does not remedy the breach but mitigates its consequences: the legal system assigns effects to the omission so that the individual does not remain trapped in a state of indefinition.
There are two modalities:
- Negative silence: the failure to issue a decision is interpreted as a rejection of the petition. This is the general rule in Argentine law
- Positive silence: the failure to issue a decision is interpreted as acceptance of the request. This is an exceptional figure, incorporated into the federal regime by Ley 27.742
In both cases, the fiction operates for the benefit of the individual, never to their detriment. The objective is to prevent government inaction from functioning as a de facto denial mechanism beyond the reach of judicial review.
Negative silence: the general rule
Article 10(a) of the LNPA provides that the Administration's silence in response to a petition by an individual must be interpreted as a denial. This is the default rule: unless a specific regulation provides otherwise, the lack of response is deemed equivalent to a presumed rejection.
The time limit to resolve
The Administration must issue its decision within the time limit established by the specific regulation applicable to the procedure in question. If the relevant rules do not set a specific deadline, the reformed text of Article 10 LNPA establishes a subsidiary limit of sixty (60) days.
The reformed provision states (translated from the Spanish original):
"If the specific regulations do not provide for a set time limit for the decision, such time limit may not exceed sixty (60) days. Once the applicable time limit has expired, the interested party may deem the Administration's silence to have been triggered."
The elimination of the pronto despacho
This is the most significant change introduced by Ley 27.742 with respect to negative silence. Under the previous regime, the mere expiration of the time limit was not sufficient to trigger the silence. The individual had to file a formal written notice known as pronto despacho before the agency and wait an additional period before being able to deem the petition denied. That intermediate step forced the petitioner to take yet another procedural action, with its own computation of deadlines, in order to access something that should have already been resolved.
The reform eliminated that requirement. Now, negative silence is triggered automatically upon the mere expiration of the time limit to resolve. The individual does not need to file any formal notice or submit any additional written submission. Once the deadline has expired, they may directly deem the silence to have been triggered and act accordingly.
Key change of the reform. Before Ley 27.742, the individual had to file a pronto despacho and wait an additional period for negative silence to be triggered. That requirement has been eliminated. Today, negative silence operates by operation of law upon expiration of the time limit to resolve, without any intermediate action required from the petitioner.
Positive silence: the innovation of Ley 27.742
Article 10(b) of the LNPA, introduced by Ley 27.742, incorporates a figure that did not exist in Argentine federal administrative procedure: positive silence. Under certain conditions, the Administration's failure to issue a decision is interpreted as acceptance of the request.
Concurrent requirements
Positive silence does not operate generically. For it to be triggered, all of the following requirements must be met simultaneously:
- The petition must relate to an administrative authorization. Not just any petition triggers positive silence. It must specifically involve a request for an authorization. The distinction is relevant: an administrative authorization removes an obstacle to the exercise of a pre-existing right of the individual, unlike a concession or permit, which grants a new right
- The Administration's power must be bound. The agency must be obligated to grant the authorization if the regulatory requirements are met. When the decision involves the exercise of discretionary powers, where the Administration may weigh the opportunity, merit, or convenience of the grant, positive silence does not apply
- The time limit to resolve must have expired. The specific procedural deadline applies, or, in its absence, the subsidiary sixty (60) day deadline
Excluded subject matters
Even when all three requirements are met, positive silence does not apply in the following subject matters, unless a specific regulation expressly provides otherwise:
- Public health
- Environment
- Public utilities
- Public domain assets
The exclusion responds to the sensitive nature of these areas, where the absence of prior administrative review could generate consequences difficult to repair for the public interest.
Effects of positive silence
Positive silence has, according to the statute itself, the status of an acto administrativo (administrative act) concluding the procedure for all purposes. This means that the individual acquires, by the mere expiration of the deadline without a decision, the rights they would have obtained through an express authorization act.
Implementing regulations
The positive silence regime was regulated by Decreto 695/2024, which established the operational conditions for its application. Disposicion Administrativa 836/2024 set a staggered implementation schedule: from November 1, 2024 for the centralized administration, and from December 1, 2024 for decentralized agencies. Decreto 971/2024 details the lists of procedures included in and excluded from the positive silence regime.
Limited scope. Positive silence has a narrow scope of application. It only applies to administrative authorizations linked to bound powers and excludes sensitive subject matters such as health, environment, public utilities, and public domain. The majority of administrative procedures remain governed by negative silence.
How silence is triggered
The mechanism for triggering silence depends on the type of administrative action involved. It is necessary to distinguish between two broad categories: petitions and claims, and administrative appeals.
In petitions and claims (Art. 10 LNPA)
Following the Ley 27.742 reform, silence in petitions and claims is triggered automatically upon the expiration of the time limit to resolve. The individual need not take any additional action. If the procedural regulation establishes a specific deadline, that is the one that governs. If it does not, the deadline is sixty (60) days.
In administrative appeals (Arts. 87 and 91 RLNPA)
In the context of administrative appeals (reconsideration, hierarchical appeal, alzada appeal), silence has always operated automatically. Articles 87 and 91 of the Regulations of the National Administrative Procedures Act (RLNPA, Decreto 1759/72) provide that, once the time limit to resolve the appeal expires without an express decision, the appeal is deemed tacitly denied without any formal notice required. In this area, the Ley 27.742 reform introduced no changes: the mechanism already worked the way it now also works for petitions.
In the prior administrative claim (Art. 31 LNPA)
The prior administrative claim has its own deadline regime. Once the claim is filed, the Administration has ninety (90) days to resolve it. If it fails to issue a decision within that period, the individual may file a pronto despacho. From that point, the Administration has an additional forty-five (45) days to resolve. If it still fails to do so, the individual is authorized to pursue judicial review. The National Executive may extend these deadlines to one hundred twenty (120) and sixty (60) days, respectively, when the complexity or circumstances of the case so warrant.
Effects of silence
The effects of administrative silence differ substantially depending on whether it is negative or positive silence. This distinction is not merely terminological: it determines the rights acquired by the individual and the powers retained by the Administration.
Effects of negative silence
Negative silence has an exclusively procedural effect. It does not generate an administrative act nor does it express the will of the State. Its sole function is to open the door to judicial review. It works as a key: it allows the individual to resort to the courts without being locked into the administrative track by the agency's inaction. But it does not constitute a decision on the merits of the matter.
The practical consequence is that the Administration retains the power to issue an express decision at any time, even after negative silence has been triggered. If it does so, that express act replaces the fiction of silence.
Effects of positive silence
Positive silence, by contrast, has substantive effects. The statute equates it to an acto administrativo (administrative act) concluding the procedure. This means that the individual acquires rights as if the Administration had issued an express authorization act.
This equivalence has important consequences regarding stability. Once the individual acts on the basis of the authorization obtained through positive silence, the Administration cannot unilaterally revoke it. If it seeks to set it aside, it must resort to the courts through an accion de lesividad (action to declare the act harmful to the public interest). The sole exception is the case of fraud by the petitioner: if the individual obtained the authorization through fraud or deceptive practices, the Administration may revoke the act on its own under Article 17 of the LNPA.
Article 65 quater of the RLNPA establishes an important limitation: under no circumstances may the authorization act imply exceptions to or non-compliance with the conditions established by regulation or statute. Positive silence grants the authorization under the terms of the applicable regulations, not beyond them.
Amparo por mora (Art. 28 LNPA)
Administrative silence resolves the problem of access to judicial review, but it does not resolve the underlying problem: the individual may need an express decision from the agency, not merely the fiction of a denial. For such cases, the legal system provides a specific judicial remedy: the amparo por mora administrativa (judicial action for administrative delay).
Article 28 of the LNPA authorizes the individual to resort to the courts when a government agency has allowed the time limits to resolve to expire without issuing a decision. The procedure is as follows:
- The individual files the amparo por mora petition before the competent court
- The court requires the agency to submit a report on the causes of the delay, which must be answered within five (5) judicial business days
- Once the report has been submitted or the deadline to submit it has expired, the court rules. If it finds the delay unjustified, it orders the agency to issue a decision within the time limit set by the judgment
The new tool introduced by Ley 27.742
The Ley 27.742 reform introduced a possibility that significantly strengthens the effectiveness of the amparo por mora. The court may now include in its judgment a warning that the petitioner's request will be deemed approved if the Administration fails to comply with the new judicially imposed deadline.
This is a powerful but delicate tool. In practice, it means the court can put the agency on notice that, if it does not resolve within the ordered deadline, the individual's petition will be deemed granted. It is a mechanism that can serve as an incentive for the Administration to fulfill its duty to resolve, but whose use requires caution given that it could effectively result in the granting of the petition by judicial means.
Courses of action in the face of silence
Once administrative silence has been triggered, the individual faces a range of options. None of them is mandatory: silence is always a right of the petitioner, never a burden. The individual may always choose to wait for an express decision if they consider it advantageous.
Option 1: Wait for an express decision
The individual may simply choose not to invoke the fiction of silence and wait for the agency to issue a decision. If they wish to expedite that decision, they may file an amparo por mora in court to compel the issuance of an express act.
Option 2: Deem negative silence triggered and pursue judicial review
If the individual does not wish to continue waiting, they may deem negative silence to have been triggered and bring an action against the State in court. Article 26 of the LNPA provides in unequivocal terms that "the action may be brought at any time once the Administration's silence has been triggered" (translated from the Spanish original). There is no forfeiture deadline for exercising this option.
Option 3: Invoke positive silence and act accordingly
If the requirements of Article 10(b) of the LNPA are met (authorization, bound power, expired deadline, non-excluded subject matter), the individual may deem the authorization to have been granted and act accordingly.
On statutes of limitation. Although Article 26 provides that the action may be brought "at any time" regarding silence, the statutes of limitation for the underlying claim begin to run from the moment silence is triggered. The absence of a forfeiture deadline to access judicial review does not suspend or interrupt the limitation periods for the substantive right involved.
Practical considerations
The reformed administrative silence regime is simpler than its predecessor, but its concrete application requires attention to several aspects that may affect the outcome.
Computation of deadlines
Administrative procedure deadlines are computed in administrative business days, not calendar days or judicial business days. The administrative business calendar may differ from the judicial calendar and the general calendar, as it includes holidays and non-working days specific to the public Administration. An error in the computation may lead to invoking silence before it has actually been triggered, with the procedural consequences that entails.
Documentation and evidence
The individual must be able to establish with precision the date of filing of their petition, the proof of receipt by the agency, and the computation of the elapsed time limit. In the event of a challenge, the burden of proving that silence was triggered falls on the party invoking it. It is essential to preserve all documentation: intake office stamps, remote filing receipts, electronic acknowledgments of receipt.
Positive silence is exceptional
Although the introduction of positive silence represents a significant advancement, its scope of application is narrow. The requirement that it involve an authorization linked to bound powers, combined with the subject-matter exclusions, means that the majority of administrative procedures remain governed by negative silence. It is a mistake to assume that every unanswered petition generates a tacit authorization.
Relevance for foreigners
For those interacting with Argentine bureaucracy in the context of global mobility, understanding the administrative silence regime is particularly important. Immigration, tax, and corporate procedures are subject to resolution deadlines that are not always met. Knowing what options exist in the face of delay -- and when they are triggered -- allows for more precise legal strategy planning, avoiding unnecessary waits, and preserving procedural rights.
Last updated: March 2026. Applicable regulations: Ley 19.549 (LNPA, text as amended by Ley 27.742), Decreto 1759/72 (RLNPA), Decreto 695/2024, DA 836/2024, Decreto 971/2024.