Answer each defect precisely
Turn the authority’s points into a response list and assign the relevant document or clarification to each one. Keep the complete submission and proof of filing.
Request for improvement in NAG proceedings: respond before the application fails
How a request for improvement under section 13 para 3 AVG should be assessed in NAG proceedings and which steps matter before the deadline.
12 July 2026
Proceedings
Mag. Mirela Saric, Attorney at Law
How a request for improvement under section 13 para 3 AVG should be assessed in NAG proceedings and which steps matter before the deadline.
The authority must initiate the correction of curable defects in a written submission and may set a reasonable period. If the defect is cured in time, the submission is treated as correctly filed from the outset.
The response therefore depends on the exact defect, service date, deadline and clear evidence of the correction.
Situation check
What stage has the response reached?
First identify whether the defect can be cured now, a document is still being obtained or a rejection decision has already been issued.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
Which situation applies?
All paths at a glance
Overview of all answers.
Evidence the delay and clarify the response
Document when the missing certificate was requested and when it is expected. Whether a reasoned extension request or an interim response is useful depends on the authority’s request.
Review the decision and earlier response together
Assess the complete decision, service date, improvement request and previous response together. This determines whether and how the rejection can be challenged.
What a request for improvement means
In administrative proceedings, a request for improvement usually asks the applicant to cure defects in the application. Section 13 para 3 AVG is a central reference point.
In NAG proceedings it may concern missing certificates, unclear information, unreadable copies or missing translations. The authority wording matters.
Under section 13 para 3 AVG, the submission may be rejected after the improvement period expires without correction. Timely correction preserves the original filing date.
Check deadline, service and content
First check service date, deadline and requested documents. Without these three points no reliable response is possible.
If a deadline is short, clarify quickly what can be submitted immediately and where an understandable explanation is needed.
The response should clearly match each document to the defect it cures. Unsorted annexes make review harder.
If documents are not available in time
Sometimes apostille, legalisation or foreign certificates are not available within the deadline. Then document when they were requested and why delay occurred.
Whether an extension request or interim response is useful depends on the request and the case status. This must be assessed individually.
Think about appeal early
If the application fails despite the response, service, reasoning and appeal deadline become decisive. The response to the request should therefore be documented carefully.
Structure the response point by point
Start with the authority, file number, date of the improvement request and date of service. State clearly that the submission addresses the defects identified in that request. This allows the authority to assign the supplement to the correct proceedings.
Then treat every defect as a separate numbered answer. Explain briefly how it is cured and identify the relevant annex. If a document is still unavailable, submit everything already available and explain when the missing certificate was requested and when it is expected to arrive.
File the supplement through the channel specified in the request and keep a complete copy with proof of filing. If a rejection decision follows, the improvement request, response, service and available appeal route must be assessed together.
Frequently asked questions on improvement requests
What happens if the improvement period expires unused?
Section 13 para 3 AVG allows the authority to reject the defective submission after the period expires without correction. The exact request, service and actual response remain decisive.
Can the authority’s deadline be extended?
There is no general answer. If a certificate is demonstrably still being obtained, it should be assessed early whether a reasoned request or documented interim response is appropriate.
Must the entire application be filed again?
The wording of the improvement request is decisive. A precise supplement often suffices if it answers every stated defect and clearly identifies the new annexes.