Decision No. 3/10 of the National Financial Market Commission regarding the preliminary appeal filed by BC VICTORIABANK S.A. against Decision No. 58/3

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 January 20, 2026 No. 3/10 Regarding the Preliminary Appeal submitted by BC "VICTORIABANK" S.A., contesting Decision No. 58/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 02.12.2025 regarding the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 7019 on 24.09.2025, in relation to BC "VICTORIABANK" S.A.

On 06.01.2026, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF), the Preliminary Appeal, submitted by Mr. Igor Cirimpei, representative of BC "VICTORIABANK" S.A. (the Bank), was registered (under No. 70), requesting "1. Cancellation of CNPF Decision No. 58/3 dated 02.12.2025; 2. Notification of BC "Victoriabank" SA of the decision adopted within the timeframe provided by Art. 167 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Moldova No. 116 dated 19.07.2018." (Preliminary Appeal).

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

In fact, it should be noted that on 24.09.2025, within the CNPF, the letter from the Chancellery of the Republic of Moldova No. 08-78-9673 dated 16.09.2025 was registered (under No. 7019), through which the petition of Mr. [...] (the petitioner) was re-addressed for examination, according to competence, having as its object the legal relationship between BC "VICTORIABANK" S.A. and the petitioner, established based on the "BCR SIGUR" Bank Deposit Contract dated 14.09.2023 (the Contract).

Following the investigations carried out within the respective administrative procedure, the analysis of the materials, and the explanations presented by the participants in the procedure, within the framework of the normative framework applicable to the contractual legal relationship, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 58/3 on 02.12.2025 regarding the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 7019 on 24.09.2025, in relation to BC "VICTORIABANK" S.A. (Decision No. 58/3/2025/Contested Decision).

According to the Contested Decision, the CNPF found the clauses in the Contract to be abusive, included in:
1) point 3.1., in part concerning the text: "3.1. For the use of the Deposit,
the Bank is obliged to pay the Depositor a variable (floating) interest rate as established in point 1.1.5. The interest rate may be modified (reduced or increased) by the Bank unilaterally depending on the evolution of the financial market or the refinancing rate of the National Bank of Moldova, subject to the condition of respecting a notice period of 15 days by posting the relevant information in the Bank's territorial units and on the Bank's website (www.bcr.md). The Depositor is considered notified of the interest rate modification from the day the relevant information is posted within the Bank's territorial units and/or on the Bank's website. In the event of a reduction in the interest rate, the notification provided for in this point has the effect of the notice period provided for in Art. 1743 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Moldova.";
2) point 5.5., which establishes that, "For the services provided within the framework of
the execution of this contract, the Depositor will pay the Bank commissions in the amounts established in the Tariffs charged by Banca Comerciala Romana S.A. (hereinafter "Tariffs"). The Tariffs charged by the Bank are made public by display at the offices of its territorial units, as well as on the Bank's website. On the date of signing this contract, the Depositor declared that he had taken note of the Bank's Tariffs in force.";
3) point 5.6., according to which, "The Bank has the right to modify its tariffs and to
bring them to the attention of the Depositor via the Bank's website and/or communications displayed at the Bank's counters. The modifications will enter into force from the date specified in the corresponding information."

Not agreeing with the findings of the CNPF, the Bank submitted the Preliminary Appeal, requesting the annulment of the Contested Decision, on the grounds that it affects the rights and legitimate interests of the Bank.

Analyzing the Preliminary Appeal in light of the legal provisions applicable to the case, it is concluded that it should be rejected as inadmissible, for the following reasons:

1. In law, Art. 19 of the Administrative Code provides that "The Preliminary Appeal is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for the resolution of administrative disputes.", and Art. 162 para. (1) of the same law stipulates that "(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts.".

2. Under the conditions of Art. 165 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, "(1) The Preliminary Appeal must be submitted within 30 days from the communication or notification of the individual administrative act or the rejection of the petition. [...]", and in accordance with Art.
   167 para. (3) of the same law, "(3) The issuing public authority resolves the preliminary appeal within 15 calendar days. The provisions of Art. 60 para. (2)- (5) apply correspondingly.".

3. From the content of Art. 167 para. (1) and para. (2) of the Administrative Code, it results
   that the preliminary appeal may be rejected as inadmissible or unfounded. Although the Administrative Code does not expressly provide what the grounds for inadmissibility of a preliminary appeal are, these can be deduced through systematic interpretation of the provisions of the Administrative Code.

4. In this case, by verifying compliance with the legal deadline provided for in Art. 165 para. (1)
   of the Administrative Code, the CNPF found that Decision No. 58/3/2025 was notified to the Bank by letter No. 05-5/4732 dated 05.12.2025, which was sent to the email address office@vb.md on the same date.

5. In turn, the Preliminary Appeal was sent on 06.01.2026 from the email address Igor.Cirimpei@vb.md.

6. Keeping in mind that, under Art. 63 of the Administrative Code, the calculation
   of deadlines is carried out in accordance with the provisions of Art. 383-390 of the Civil Code, it is found that the 30-day deadline provided for in Art. 165 para. (1) of the Administrative Code begins to run from 06.12.2025 (inclusive) and expires on 05.01.2026 (by applying the rule at Art. 389 of the Civil Code).

7. Accordingly, it is established that the Preliminary Appeal was submitted late, beyond
   the 30-day deadline, whereas the Preliminary Appeal should have been submitted no later than 05.01.2026.

8. Therefore, the Preliminary Appeal is subject to being rejected as
   inadmissible, due to non-compliance with the deadline provided for in Art. 165 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, similar to the consequence established at Art. 207 para. (2) lit. d) of the Administrative Code, according to which the action in administrative litigation is declared inadmissible if it was submitted after the expiration of the deadline provided for in Art. 209 of the Administrative Code.

9. Complementarily, regarding the Bank's allegation that the Contested Decision was received on 08.12.2025, and thus it is within the legal deadline to submit the Preliminary Appeal, it should be noted that this cannot be accepted as plausible.

10. Moreover, in the factual circumstances exposed in point 4, the notification of Decision
    No. 58/3/2025 was carried out to the Bank's official email address office@vb.md.

11. Relevant are the provisions contained in Art. 1101
    para. (1) of the
    Administrative Code, according to which "(1) Notification by electronic mail to the electronic address of the person to be notified is carried out by transmitting the document to be notified in the form of an electronic document, with the application of the electronic signature of the person responsible from the public authority. Notification by electronic mail is carried out if the postal address was previously indicated by the notified person. Notification by electronic mail is equivalent to substitute notification by placing it in the mailbox.".

12. Subsequently, Art. 104 of the Administrative Code provides that, "(1) If
    notification cannot be carried out according to Art. 103 lit. a) or b), the document to be notified may be placed in a mailbox belonging to the residence or activity spaces of the person to be notified or in a similar device that they have installed for receiving mail and which is usually suitable for secure storage. The person carrying out the notification mentions the date of notification on the envelope of the document to be notified. (2) Upon deposit according to para. (1), the document is considered notified."

13. Therefore, the notification of Decision No. 58/3/2025 occurred not on 08.12.2025, but on 05.12.2025.

14. In this context, it should be emphasized that the procedural deadlines provided for by the Administrative Code are mandatory, being established to ensure the stability of legal relationships and the predictability of administrative action. Non-compliance with them entails procedural consequences, including the inadmissibility of the request.

15. In its constant jurisprudence, the ECtHR has ruled that legal security
    requires that procedural rules, including those regarding deadlines, be respected by both authorities and individuals. Acceptance of unjustified exceptions to legal deadlines would lead to arbitrariness and would affect legitimate trust in the rule of law.

16. In this case, the Bank was bound by a heightened duty of diligence in monitoring official correspondence and in respecting legal deadlines. The use of the official email address indicates that the notification is valid, having been carried out on 05.12.2025, and any subsequent registration of the message cannot delay the start of the running of the legal deadline.

Based on the considerations set out above, under the authority of Art. 18 para. (3), Art. 20 para. (1) and para. (6) and Art. 22 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, the Civil Code, Art. 162 para. (1), Art. 167 para. (3) and Art. 169 para. (2) and para. (3) 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 Appeal, submitted by BC
   "VICTORIABANK" S.A., regarding the contestation of Decision No. 58/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 02.12.2025 regarding the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 7019 on 24.09.2025, in relation to BC "VICTORIABANK" S.A. (registered with CNPF under No. 70 on 06.01.2026), is rejected as inadmissible.

2. This Decision may be contested with an action in administrative litigation,
   submitted to the Chisinau Court, Rascani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev 3 St.), 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 CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI,
PRESIDENT