Decision No. 12/4 of 10 March 2026 regarding the preliminary application by SA "ACORD GRUP" SA for the annulment of CNPF Decision No. 3/3 of 20 January 2026

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION
77 Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd., Chisinau, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md DECISION 10 March 2026 No. 12/4 Regarding the Preliminary Application submitted by SA "ACORD GRUP" SA, regarding the annulment of Decision No. 3/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 20.01.2026 concerning the petitions registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 8299 and No. 8567 on 14.11.2025 and, respectively, on 27.11.2025, in relation to SA "ACORD GRUP" SA

On 18.02.2026, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF), the Preliminary Application No. 240/2026 dated 17.02.2026 (hereinafter: the Application) was registered (under No. 1018), submitted by SA "ACORD GRUP" SA (the insurer), requesting:

"1. As the main claim, to admit this preliminary application and to annul (revoke) in full Decision No. 3/3 of the CNPF dated 20.01.2026 as being issued with erroneous application of the law, exceeding material competence, and with incorrect interpretation of the norms of Law No. 106/2022.
2. As a secondary claim, to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the interests of ACORD GRUP, as well as those of other professional participants in the insurance market of the Republic of Moldova, to order the suspension of the execution of Decision No. 3/3 of the CNPF dated 20.01.2026 until the completion of the preliminary procedure."

In this case, it should be noted that, in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation that provides the real possibility of analyzing the claim, the insurer is informed that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in the preliminary order, is carried out by distinguished officers of the CNPF.

In fact, on 14.11.2025, and additionally on 27.11.2025, within the CNPF, petitions were registered (under No. 8299 and, respectively, No. 8567) submitted by Ms. [...], lawyer, on behalf of Mr. [...] (the insured/consumer) and [...] SRL (the tenant), requesting the intervention of the CNPF regarding the actions of SA "ACORD GRUP" SA.

As a result of the investigations conducted in the context of the respective administrative procedure, the analysis of the materials/evidence presented by the participants in the procedure, within the framework of the normative framework applicable to the contractual relations, the CNPF, on 20.10.2026, adopted Decision No. 3/3 regarding the petitions registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 8299 and No. 8567 on 14.11.2025 and, respectively, on 27.11.2025, in relation to SA "ACORD GRUP" SA (Decision No. 3/3/2026/Contested Decision), by which it was decided:

"1. It is established that SA "ACORD GRUP" SA violated Art. 13 para. (1) of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection by using incorrect commercial practices in providing information related to the calculation of the insurance premium and to the termination of the mandatory third-party liability auto insurance contract No. [...], issued on 02.09.2025.
2. It is established that SA "ACORD GRUP" SA violated Art. 89 para. (1) lit. a), lit. b), and lit. d) of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance or reinsurance activity.
3. It is established that SA "ACORD GRUP" SA violated Art. 12 para. (3) and para. (7) of Law No. 106/2022 on mandatory third-party liability auto insurance for damages caused by vehicles.
4. SA "ACORD GRUP" SA is prohibited from applying incorrect commercial practices, namely misleading omissions, by omitting essential information or providing it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous manner, which in any situation determines or is likely to determine the consumer to make a transaction decision that they would not have made in another situation.
5. SA "ACORD GRUP" SA is prohibited from applying aggressive commercial practices, by limiting the freedom and behavior of the consumer regarding the product, through unjustified and practical influence, which determines or is likely to determine the consumer to make a transaction decision that they would not have made otherwise.
6. Mr. [...] is informed of the right to request remedial measures, proportionate and effective, including price reduction or restitution of value, through contract termination, as well as compensation for damages suffered, provided for in Art. 15 para. (6) of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection.
7. SA "ACORD GRUP" SA is prescribed to revise its internal procedures regarding notification, premium recalculation, and termination of mandatory third-party liability auto insurance contracts (RCA), in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of Law No. 106/2022 on mandatory third-party liability auto insurance for damages caused by vehicles and the requirements of consumer protection legislation."

Disagreeing with the findings of the CNPF, the insurer submitted a Preliminary Application, requesting the annulment of the contested Decision, as well as the suspension of its execution. In this case, it is noted that regarding the request for suspension, Decision No. 10/4 of 24.02.2026 was previously adopted regarding the request for suspension of the execution of Decision No. 3/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 20.01.2026 concerning the petitions registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 8299 and No. 8567 on 14.11.2025 and, respectively, on 27.11.2025, in relation to SA "ACORD GRUP" SA.

A priori, it is noted that in accordance with Art. 20 of the Administrative Code, "If an administrative activity infringes a legitimate right or a freedom established by law, this right may be claimed through an administrative litigation action, [...]", and according to Art. 17, "An infringed right is any right or freedom established by law to which harm is caused by administrative activity."

In law, according to Art. 19 of the Administrative Code, "The preliminary application is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for the resolution of administrative disputes.", and in accordance with the provisions of Art. 162 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law, "(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts. [...] (3) The preliminary application may be directed towards: a) the annulment in whole or in part of an illegal or null individual administrative act; b) the issuance of an individual administrative act."

Under the conditions of Art. 166 of the Administrative Code, "The preliminary application may be submitted only if the person claims the rights infringed by the issuance or rejection of the issuance of an individual administrative act."

Analyzing the arguments exposed in the Preliminary Application, within the framework of the legal provisions applicable to the case, it will be assessed whether they are of a nature to overturn the findings of the CNPF, as follows:

1. In fact, on 02.09.2025, Mr. [...], through the Insurance Broker "VR INSURANCE GROUP" SRL, submitted to SA "ACORD GRUP" SA a request for the conclusion of the mandatory third-party liability auto insurance contract for damages caused by vehicles (mandatory RCA insurance), in which he indicated, in "Chapter 5. Characteristics K3 Legal status of the insured", the quality of "Natural Person".

Based on this request, the mandatory RCA insurance contract No. [...] (Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract) was concluded, valid for the period 04.09.2025 – 03.09.2026, in relation to the TOYOTA PRIUS vehicle, reg. no. [...].

The mandatory RCA insurance contract was concluded in accordance with Art. 8 para. (1) of Law No. 106/2022 on mandatory third-party liability auto insurance for damages caused by vehicles (Law No. 106/2022), with the natural person – owner of the vehicle, who acquired the quality of insured and holder of the personal risk of auto third-party liability.

According to point 8 of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract, the insurance premium was calculated in the amount of 1,324.70 lei, with the presentation of its calculation, in accordance with Art. 12 para. (3) of Law No. 106/2022.

Subsequently, on 03.09.2025, the TOYOTA PRIUS vehicle, reg. no. [...], was transferred into possession to [...] SRL, based on Lease Contract No. 11 dated 03.09.2025.

In accordance with Art. 4 para. (1) and Art. 8 para. (3) of Law No. 106/2022, in the situation of the case, the legal person exploiting the vehicle had the obligation to conclude its own RCA contract, an obligation which, according to the case materials, was not fulfilled.

Subsequently, the vehicle transferred for lease to [...] SRL was involved in 2 road accidents, with the tenant's driver being found at fault. Correspondingly, the insurer paid the insurance compensation in both cases, simultaneously requesting the restitution, by [...] SRL, of the amount paid, under Art. 8 para. (3) and para. (4) and Art. 30 para. (1) lit. a) of Law No. 106/2022.

Complementarily, on 22.10.2025, SA "ACORD GRUP" SA notified Mr. [...] and [...] SRL that, upon the conclusion of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract, "Mr. [...] provided information that did not correspond to reality for the insurer to be able to assess the degree of risk [...]", requesting, according to the provisions of Art. 12 para. (6) and para. (7) of Law No. 106/2022, the modification of the insurance premium, by re-underwriting it to the legal person – [...] SRL, with payment of the premium difference in the amount of 19,326.79 lei.

At the same time, the insured and [...] SRL were notified that, in case the request was not resolved, the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract was to be terminated within 20 days from the notification.

Subsidiarily, on 17.11.2025, the notification regarding the termination of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract was sent to Mr. [...], as a result of unilateral termination, referencing Order No. 17-1-2025 dated 13.11.2025, by which the termination, effective from 13.11.2025, of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract was established, with the revocation of insurance policy No. [...] and with the attribution of the premium for the unused period to other revenues of the insurance activity.

2. With reference to the legal framework applicable to the case, the insurer argues that the Contested Decision "(i) applies an incorrect legal framework, (ii) ignores the special law No. 106/2022."

In support of this conclusion, the insurer claims that the CNPF applied "artificially" Law No. 105/2003 "in a legal relationship strictly regulated by a special law (RCA Law)", which, in his opinion, "constitutes an ultra vires interpretation."

That argument cannot be upheld under the conditions that Art. 2 para. (1) of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection (Law No. 105/2003) provides that "(1) This law establishes the general requirements for consumer protection, ensuring the necessary framework for unrestricted access to products and services, complete information on their main characteristics, defense and assurance of the legitimate rights and interests of consumers in case of incorrect commercial practices, their participation in the foundation and taking of decisions that concern them as consumers." At the same time, at Art. 36 para. (2) lit. g) of the same normative act, it is established that "(2) The control of compliance with the provisions of legislation on consumer protection regarding the safety and quality of products and services introduced or made available on the market and intended for consumers, including regarding correct practices in the field, is carried out: [...] g) over the subjects provided for in Art. 4 para. (21) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission – by the National Financial Market Commission;"

In this sense, the CNPF concludes that the insurer's statements are erroneous, and Law No. 105/2003 governs all legal relationships between the professional and the consumer, constituting the general regulatory framework for such relationships, while the special law establishes specific norms derived from the legal nature of insurance relationships. Or, the existence of special norms does not exclude the application of the general framework, unless the legislator explicitly indicates this fact.

3. Regarding aggressive commercial practices, the CNPF found that, contrary to the provisions of Art. 89 para. (1) lit. a), lit. b), and lit. d) of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance or reinsurance activity (Law No. 92/2022), which impose on the insurance company the obligation to act with professionalism, honesty, respect the rights and interests of the insured, and provide them with information regarding insurance premiums, as well as with the violation of the requirements of professional diligence, under Art. 1, Art. 13 para. (2) lit. a) of Law No. 105/2003, the insurer, on 22.10.2025, sent a notification to Mr. [...], invoking the violation of legal provisions by the insured, requesting, as a consequence, the re-underwriting of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract in the name of [...] SRL, with modification of the insurance premium.

SA "ACORD GRUP" SA, in the notification dated 22.10.2025, argues that, upon the conclusion of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract, "Mr. [...] provided information that did not correspond to reality for the insurer to be able to assess the degree of risk, although in the request he confirmed that the information presented was truthful."

From the examination of the case materials, it results that:
1) on 02.09.2025, Mr. [...] correctly declared his status as a natural person, being the owner and user of the vehicle;
2) The Lease Contract with [...] SRL was concluded subsequently, under No. 11 on 03.09.2025.

Therefore, within the limits of the factual circumstances invoked and in the absence of contrary evidence, a non-correspondence of the information provided at the moment of conclusion of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract cannot be upheld, which is an essential condition for the application of Art. 12 para. (6) of Law No. 106/2022.

In this case, Art. 12 para. (6) of Law No. 106/2022 explicitly indicates that the mechanism of premium recalculation can intervene only in the situation where the information provided by the insured does not correspond to reality "at the moment of conclusion of the mandatory RCA insurance contract."

Also, the invocation of the subsequent aggravation of risk, under Art. 12 para. (7) of Law No. 106/2022, in the sense of the use of the vehicle by a legal person in taxi regime, is unfounded, because:
1) the use of the vehicle by the legal person does not affect the personal third-party liability risk of the insured natural person;
2) Art. 8 para. (3) of Law No. 106/2022 explicitly provides that the risk of users of the legal person is considered insured, the insurer having exclusively the right of subrogation, not the right to modify or terminate the contract of the natural person.

Consequently, the obligation to inform and possible sanctioning measures could only target the subject exploiting the vehicle for commercial purposes, namely the legal person, but not the initial insured (natural person), or, Art. 12 para. (7) of Law No. 106/2022 cannot be interpreted extensively, to the detriment of the insured and to eliminate the consequences of the tenant's failure to fulfill the obligation to insure, by modifying the contractual subject or by terminating the contract of an insured, with respect to whom there are no signs of violation of the law.

In this case, in the Preliminary Application, the insurer invokes that "termination is not a commercial practice, but a legal mechanism expressly regulated by Art. 12 para. (7) of Law No. 106/2022."

In this sense, it should be mentioned that Art. 12 para. (7) of Law No. 106/2022 establishes both a perfectly legal mechanism and the exhaustive conditions under which this mechanism is to be applied.

In this context, the right to terminate the insurance contract can only be exercised if the insured "does not agree to the modification of the contractual conditions under the conditions of para. (6) of this article."

For its part, Art. 12 para. (6) of the same law clearly specifies that the basis for modifying the insurance premium is the fact that "the information provided by the insured, according to Art. 8, does not correspond to reality at the moment of conclusion of the mandatory RCA insurance contract", an aspect that is not established in the situation of the case.

By the notification dated 22.10.2025, the insurer requested "modification of the insurance premium for contract No. RCAI [...] of 02.09.2025 by re-underwriting it to the legal person [...] SRL with payment of the insurance premium difference in the amount of 19,326.79 lei.", under the sanction of termination of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract, a sanction that was, in fact, applied by Order No. 17-1-2025 dated 13.11.2025.

The obligation to increase the premium, recalculate the risk, or apply contractual measures could only target the contract of the legal person (non-existent in this case), but not the valid Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract concluded with the natural person, who did not lose the quality of insured.

Thus, the transfer of the vehicle for use, subsequent to the conclusion of the insurance contract, cannot alter the right of the owner, a natural person, to benefit from the concluded insurance. At the same time, following the conclusion of the lease contract, the obligation of the tenant to conclude a third-party liability auto insurance contract for damages caused by vehicles arises.

In this sense, the situation of the case does not require an aggravation of the risk resulting from the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract, but rather involves a new subject, who had the obligation to conclude a third-party liability auto insurance contract for damages caused by vehicles, but which was not respected.

Under such conditions, the legal protection of the insurer consists in filing a subrogation action, under Art. 30 para. (1) lit. a) of Law No. 106/2022, but never the termination of the insurance contract.

Moreover, by requesting the re-underwriting of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract from a natural person to a legal person, in this case, on [...] SRL, the insurer exceeded the discretionary right and the principle of contractual freedom, which belongs exclusively to Mr. [...], or, he did not have the right to modify the subject of the contract, nor to condition this fact.

As a direct effect of this conduct, which is likely to distort the essential economic behavior of the consumer, as provided for in Art. 13 para. (2) lit. b) of Law No. 105/2003, Mr. [...] was deprived of the insurance of his personal risk of auto third-party liability, although no violation attributable to him was established and there was no legal basis for the cessation of mandatory RCA insurance protection.

Furthermore, the insurer, in order to respect the principles of professional diligence, should have:
1) clearly delimited the subjects of the contractual obligation;
2) applied sanctions only to the legal subject targeted by the norm;
3) used exclusively the instruments provided by law (subrogation).

By applying the termination of the RCA Contract concluded by the natural person, the insurer unjustifiably extended the effects of the alleged aggravation of risk to a subject who was not the author of the non-conforming conduct, applied a disproportionate and legally unfounded measure, considerably limited the consumer's freedom of choice, in a field characterized by the legal obligation of the RCA service, forced the consumer to accept unfounded claims under the sanction of losing RCA protection, or, termination constitutes, ultima ratio, admissible exclusively in relation to the subject who violated the legal obligation to inform.

In this case, the insurer declares that "not only did he have the right, but also the obligation to react to the aggravation of the risk."

Contradictorily, the provisions of Art. 12 para. (6) and para. (7) of Law No. 106/2022 operate with the statements "the insurance premium may be recalculated" and "the RCA insurer may terminate the contract", which indicates that these mechanisms are rights of the insurer, but never obligations.

Therefore, the insurer not only incorrectly interpreted the legal provisions of Art. 12 para. (6) and para. (7) of Law No. 106/2022, but also applied them in relation to the consumer, in the absence of the incidence of legal grounds and exhaustive conditions, which would give rise to this right of the insurer.

In conclusion, the CNPF found that the insurer terminated the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract without legal grounds, invoking provisions and conditions irrelevant to the situation of the case.

In the context of the above, according to Art. 13 para. (15) of Law No. 105/2003, a commercial practice is aggressive if, in the context of the factual situation:
1) limits or is likely to considerably limit the consumer's freedom of choice;
2) coerces or unjustifiably influences;
3) determines or is likely to determine the consumer to make a transaction decision that, in the absence of this practice, they would not have made.

According to para. (16) lit. d) and lit. e) of the same article, to determine whether a commercial practice resorts to coercion, the following conditions are relevant:
1) imposition of costly or disproportionate obstacles, not provided for in the contract, for the exercise of contractual rights;
2) threat with measures that cannot be taken legally.

The termination of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract of the natural person did not represent the legitimate exercise of a contractual right, but was used as a means of pressure to determine the acceptance of conditions imposed by the insurer (re-underwriting the Contract to a legal person and payment of an additional premium).

At the same time, it was preceded by an ultimatum notification, which conditioned the maintenance of RCA protection on the acceptance of the insurer's request.

This conduct goes beyond the sphere of simple information and represents an unjustified influence, because the insurer exploited its position of contractual power in a field mandatory by law.

The Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract is not an optional service, but a legal condition for exercising the right to use a vehicle.

By terminating the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract, the consumer was placed in a situation of legal and economic coercion. In the hypothesis of using the vehicle for personal purposes (a right that the owner retains even in the case of transferring the vehicle for lease), Mr. [...] was exposed to the risk of contraventional sanctions1.

1 Art. 229 para. (3) of the Contraventional Code

At the same time, he was deprived of insurance protection for his own tort liability, being exposed to personal civil liability for any damages caused to third parties, as well as the legal impossibility of using the vehicle.

Under these conditions, the consumer's freedom of choice was severely restricted, he being put in the situation to accept the conditions imposed by the insurer or to bear serious legal consequences.

Thus, the application of termination constitutes a threat with a measure that could not be taken, legally, subsumable to Art. 13 para. (16) lit. e) of Law No. 105/2003, or, the termination of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract determined the following consequences