Decision No. 2/2 of 13 January 2026 regarding the preliminary request by FINANCECASA SRL against CNPF Decision No. 58/9 of 02.12.2025

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION 1 DECISION 13 January 2026 No. 2/2 Regarding the Preliminary Request filed by "FINANCECASA" SRL against Decision No. 58/9 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 02.12.2025 regarding the summons for execution by "FINANCECASA" SRL of certain decisions of the National Financial Market Commission

On 15.12.2025, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/authority), the Preliminary Request filed by "FINANCECASA" SRL (professional) was registered (No. 10072), in which the following was requested: "1. The total annulment of the illegal individual administrative act, namely CNPF Decision No. 58/9 of 02.12.2025; 2. The suspension of the execution of CNPF Decision No. 58/9 of 02.12.2025" (Preliminary Request).

In this case, in order to ensure a full, objective, and transparent investigation that would offer the real possibility of analyzing the professional's claim, it was communicated to them that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in preliminary order, would be carried out by distinguished executors within the CNPF.

In fact, on 02.12.2025, the CNPF issued Decision No. 58/9 regarding the summons for execution by "FINANCECASA" SRL of certain decisions of the National Financial Market Commission (Decision No. 58/9/2025), by which it summoned "FINANCECASA" SRL to execute, within 10 working days from the date of communication of said Decision, the obligations provided for in: "1. point 2 of Decision No. 35/4 of 23.07.2024, regarding the petition registered at CNPF with No. 1961 of 15.03.2024, in relation to "FINANCECASA" SRL; 2. point 3 of Decision No. 39/2 of 20.08.2024, regarding the petition registered at CNPF with No. 5719 of 24.07.2024, in relation to "FINANCECASA" SRL; 3. point 3 of Decision No. 43/9 of 23.09.2024, regarding the petition registered at CNPF with No. 6152 of 14.08.2024, in relation to "FINANCECASA" SRL; 4. point 2 of Decision No. 43/10 of 23.09.2024, regarding the petition registered at CNPF with No. 6336 of 23.08.2024, in relation to "FINANCECASA" SRL; 5. point 3 of Decision No. 51/6 of 05.11.2024, regarding the petition registered at CNPF with No. 7046 of 25.09.2024, in relation to "FINANCECASA" SRL; 6. point 3 of Decision No. 51/7 of 05.11.2024, regarding the petition registered at CNPF with No. 7200 of 02.10.2024, in relation to "FINANCECASA" SRL; 7. point 2 of Decision No. 5/6, regarding the petition registered at CNPF with No. 8864 of 12.12.2024, in relation to "FINANCECASA" SRL."

2 Thus, disagreeing with Decision No. 58/9/2025, "FINANCECASA" SRL filed a Preliminary Request.

In law, Article 19 of the Administrative Code provides that "The Preliminary Request is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for the resolution of administrative disputes," and Article 162, paragraphs (1) and (3) of the same law stipulate that "(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts. [...] (3) The Preliminary Request may be directed towards: a) the total or partial annulment of an illegal or null individual administrative act; [...]".

Furthermore, under the conditions of Article 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Request may be filed only if the person claims rights violated by the issuance or refusal to issue an individual administrative act," and in accordance with Article 167, paragraphs (1) and (3) of the same law, "(1) If it considers the preliminary request to be admissible and well-founded, the issuing public authority annuls the contested individual administrative act in whole or in part or issues the requested individual administrative act. [...] (3) The issuing public authority resolves the preliminary request within 15 calendar days. The provisions of Article 60, paragraphs (2) – (5) apply correspondingly."

In the sense of Article 169, paragraph (3) of the Administrative Code, the provisions regarding individual administrative acts apply, correspondingly, in the order of examination of the preliminary request.

From the content of the cited norms, it is evident that the preliminary procedure is a pre-litigation path made available to the public authority to verify the legality of its own individual administrative act.

Regarding the fact invoked by the professional concerning the lack of notification of some decisions listed in Decision No. 58/9/2025, it should be specified that this argument cannot be upheld, given that the CNPF notified the decisions to the addresses publicly available as belonging to "FINANCECASA" SRL, or to addresses through which communication with the professional had previously occurred.

Moreover, the authority has not received notifications of address changes for "FINANCECASA" SRL.

On the subject, through the Preliminary Request, the professional communicated that the courts had expressed themselves on the credit contracts, which constituted the basis for the CNPF decisions indicated in Decision No. 58/9/2025, with court decisions being issued ordering their execution, essentially invoking the existence of a supposed contradiction between the CNPF's findings and the courts' solutions.

In this case, in accordance with the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (7) of Law No. 202/2013 on Consumer Credit Contracts (Law No. 202/2013, in force at the time of the violation's establishment), "(7) It is prohibited: a) the application of the annual credit interest rate specified in the credit contract if it exceeds 50%, and all other related payments (fees, taxes, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment), except for interest, per credit day exceed 0.04% of the total value of the credit for the term of actual use of the credit by the consumer; b) establishing the total cost of the credit (which includes interest, fees, taxes, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment) higher than the disbursed amount according to the respective contract (or the entry value of the good in the financial leasing contract), a credit not intended for the purchase, construction, or renovation (modernization) of a housing guaranteed with real estate to ensure the payment obligation of the respective credit," and, according to Article 15, paragraph (9) of the aforementioned law, it is established that, "(9) In the event of violation of the provisions of paragraphs (7) or (8), the creditor has the right to request only the return of the initial disbursed amount according to the credit contract granted, without claiming other payments provided for in the contract (including interest, fees, taxes, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payments). This provision applies even in the case where the creditor has transferred to a third party the right to collect claims related to the credit contract granted."

3 Furthermore, in accordance with Article 15, paragraph (91), "The supervisory authority requests the creditor to return all payments provided for in the contract (which include interest, fees, taxes, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment), except for the initial disbursed amount according to the contract, in the event of violation of paragraphs (7) and/or (8)."

Consequently, based on the content of the aforementioned norms, it is established that the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (7), as well as the legal remedy provided for by Article 15, paragraph (9) or, as applicable, paragraph (91) of Law No. 202/2013, are mandatory and apply by virtue of the law, and the creditor is obliged to respect them during the duration of the legal credit relationship, including at the stage of execution and collection of the claim.

On the subject, the existence of court decisions/enforcement titles invoked by the professional, issued in individual disputes between the creditor and the debtor, cannot be upheld as a basis for exemption from respecting the requirements of Law No. 202/2013, nor as a basis for concluding a supposed contradiction with CNPF acts, as the decision regarding a debt collection action does not equate, by itself, to an express finding of conformity of the total cost of the credit or the total value payable by the consumer with the legal limits established by Article 15, paragraph (7) of the same law, and does not justify the removal of the regime established by the legislator as a sanction for non-compliance.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the application of Article 15, paragraph (9) of Law No. 202/2013 presupposes that, in case of violation of paragraph (7), the creditor has the right to request only the return of the initial disbursed amount, without claiming other payments, and, to the extent that payments exceeding the legal framework have been collected, the restitution mechanism provided for in Article 15, paragraph (91) of the aforementioned law becomes applicable.

Therefore, the professional's argument regarding the supposed contradiction cannot constitute grounds for the annulment of Decision No. 58/9/2025.

Furthermore, through the Preliminary Request, the professional also invoked the fact that "FINANCECASA" SRL no longer holds the status of a subject of relations concerning regulation, supervision, and control in the field of consumer rights protection, within the meaning of Article 4, paragraph (21) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission (Law No. 192/1998), as it would not fall into the categories of subjects provided for by the aforementioned norm, including it no longer has the status of a non-bank credit organization, according to Article 4, paragraph (21), letter c) of Law No. 192/1998.

In this context, according to Article 26, paragraph (1) of Law No. 202/2013, "(1) The supervisory authority regarding compliance with legislation in the field of consumer credit contracts is the National Financial Market Commission."

Therefore, the CNPF's competence in verifying the legality of contracts concluded by professionals under the prism of Law No. 202/2013 is established. In this regard, it should be noted that, at the time of concluding the contracts covered by the CNPF decisions, "FINANCECASA" SRL was engaged in credit activities, and its deletion from the Register of authorized non-bank credit organizations does not represent the liquidation of the legal entity, nor does it absolve it of responsibility for non-compliance with Law No. 202/2013 at the time of concluding the contracts.

Additionally, it should be specified that Law No. 202/2013 operates with the term "creditor," establishing reference norms at the moment of contract conclusion and in the process of its execution, without the modification of the professional's status over time being relevant.

Subsequently, in accordance with Article 4, paragraph (24) of Law No. 192/1998, "(24) The competencies of the Commission regarding regulation, supervision, and control in the field of consumer rights protection extend, correspondingly, to subjects who previously held the status provided for in paragraph (21), until all obligations are honored or all rights are exercised in relation to consumers."

Consequently, based on the aforementioned, given the subsequent modification of the professional's status, it should be noted that this does not remove the CNPF's competence regarding obligations arising from credit contracts concluded with consumers.

Furthermore, given that "FINANCECASA" SRL previously held the status of a non-bank credit organization, and the legal relations examined are consumer credit relations, the CNPF's competence to examine the legality of these relations and to request the execution of measures ordered within the consumer protection mechanism is established.

4 Subsequently, through the Preliminary Request, the professional also requests the suspension of the execution of Decision No. 58/9/2025, by which the creditor was summoned to execute the obligations established previously and was warned about the consequences of non-execution within the granted term.

Thus, it should be specified that the application of the coercive fine is not realized through Decision No. 58/9/2025, but presupposes the adoption of a subsequent administrative act, within the administrative procedure initiated ex officio by the CNPF on 13.11.2025, in order to execute Decision No. 5/6 of 27.01.2025 regarding the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission with No. 8864 on 12.12.2024, in relation to "FINANCECASA" SRL, and Decision No. 12/3 of 04.03.2025 regarding the repeated summons of "FINANCECASA" SRL regarding the execution of CNPF decisions No. 35/4/2024, No. 39/2/2024, No. 43/9/2024, No. 43/10/2024, No. 51/6/2024, and No. 51/7/2024, implicitly, the primarily unexecuted decisions.

Furthermore, under Article 81, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Code, by the Order of the CNPF President No. 2 of 02.01.2026 regarding the suspension of the administrative procedure, initiated ex officio on 13.11.2025, in relation to "FINANCECASA" SRL, the suspension of the respective administrative procedure was ordered until the issuance of the decision on the Preliminary Request filed by "FINANCECASA" SRL, and during the examination thereof, the procedure that could lead to the application of the coercive fine is considered suspended.

Consequently, the request regarding the suspension of the execution of Decision No. 58/9/2025 cannot be upheld, as the alleged risk invoked by the professional relates to a possible consequence that could arise through a distinct subsequent administrative act, and Decision No. 58/9/2025 has the character of a summons to execute obligations established previously, not producing, by itself, the effect of applying the coercive fine.

Furthermore, by CNPF letter No. 06-5/4999 dated 30.12.2025, in accordance with Article 94 of the Administrative Code, the professional was informed of the right to be heard regarding the facts and circumstances relevant to the decision to be adopted within the preliminary procedure.

Respectively, under Article 94, paragraph (2) of the Administrative Code, it was communicated that the hearing is to be carried out in writing, by submitting, to the address of the CNPF, a position by 12.01.2026 inclusive.

5 Consequently, the professional was requested to express themselves on aspects relevant for the examination of the Preliminary Request, including on the reasons why they claim that some of the CNPF decisions mentioned in Decision No. 58/9/2025 were received, while others were not, although they were transmitted to the same recipient, at the same addresses, as well as to indicate which specific decisions were not communicated to them and regarding which of these they claim they did not take notice.

On the subject, no response has been received from the professional within the term granted by the CNPF.

Furthermore, by the Order of the CNPF Vice-President No. 1253 dated 29.12.2025 regarding the extension of the term of the preliminary procedure, initiated by the Preliminary Request filed by "FINANCECASA" SRL, the term of the preliminary procedure was extended until 14.01.2026 inclusive.

Thus, relating to the acts and information in the administrative file and to the limits of the preliminary procedure, it should be concluded that no grounds are found for intervention in Decision No. 58/9/2025, which is why the Preliminary Request should be rejected.

From the considerations recorded above, under the authority of Article 18, paragraph (3), Article 20, paragraphs (1), (6), and (7), and Article 22, paragraph (3) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, Law No. 202/2013 on Consumer Credit Contracts, Article 17, Article 19, Article 162, paragraphs (1) and (3), letter a), Article 166, Article 167, paragraph (3), and Article 169 of the Administrative Code, and points 16 and 19 of the Regulation on the Organization and Functioning of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF Decision No. 57/11/2022),

The National Financial Market Commission DECIDES:

1. The Preliminary Request filed by "FINANCECASA" SRL against Decision No. 58/9 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 02.12.2025 regarding the summons for execution by "FINANCECASA" SRL of certain decisions of the National Financial Market Commission (registered at CNPF with No. 10072 on 15.12.2025) is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested with an administrative litigation action, filed with the Chișinău Court, Râșcani branch (MD-2068, Chișinău, Kiev St. 3), within 30 days from the date of its communication.

3. This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption, is communicated to the recipient in accordance with the legislation, and is published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI, PRESIDENT