Decision No. 47/4 of 15 September 2026 regarding the preliminary application contesting CNPF Letter No. 05-5/3427

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
15 September 2026 No. 47/4

Regarding the Preliminary Application of Mr. […], submitted by his representative, Mr. […], contesting the letter of the National Financial Market Commission No. 05-5/3427 dated 10.08.2026 regarding the completion of the administrative procedure, initiated based on the petition submitted by Mr. […], representative of Mr. […]

On 21.08.2026, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF), the Preliminary Application of Mr. […] (petitioner), submitted by his representative, Mr. […], was registered (No. 7286), "against the Response of CNPF No. 05-5/3427 dated 10.08.2026 issued within the framework of the administrative procedure initiated based on petition No. 55294 dated 26.06.2026" (Preliminary Application).

In this case, it should be noted that, in order to ensure a full, objective, and transparent investigation, which would offer the real possibility of analyzing the petitioner's claim, it is communicated to him that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in preliminary order, is carried out by distinct executors within the CNPF.

In fact, on 26.06.2026, within the CNPF, the petition was registered (No. 5294) requesting the intervention of the CNPF regarding the legal relationship established with OCN "ECOFINANCE TECHNOLOGIES" SRL (creditor), based on the Non-bank Credit Contract No. […] dated 12.03.2026 (Credit Contract).

According to the Credit Contract, the total value of the credit amounts to 44,000 MDL. The Contract establishes an annual interest rate of 49.9685 percent, as well as a credit management commission of 0.04 percent per day on the credit balance. At the same time, from the materials of the administrative file, it is established that, on 12.03.2026, the petitioner concluded the Agreement on the provision of extended services to personal account No. […] (Additional Agreement), a legal act distinct from the Credit Contract.

As a result of the investigations carried out within the framework of the respective administrative procedure, the analysis of the materials/evidence presented by the participants in the procedure, in the light of the applicable regulatory framework for contractual relations, the CNPF, on 10.08.2026, issued letter No. 05-5/3427 regarding the completion of the administrative procedure, initiated based on the petition submitted by Mr. […], representative of Mr. […] (letter No. 05-5/3427).

According to letter No. 05-5/3427, the CNPF established, in principal, that "the Agreement on the provision of extended services to personal account has a distinct contractual object, namely the provision of additional services, for which a monthly remuneration of 750 lei is established."

Not agreeing with the findings of the CNPF, the petitioner submitted a Preliminary Application, primarily requesting "Re-examination and Cancellation of the conclusions formulated by the CNPF in Response No. 05-5/3427 dated 10.08.2026 issued regarding OCN 'ECOFINANCE TECHNOLOGIES' SRL."

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

1. In law, Article 19 of the Administrative Code provides that, "The Preliminary Application is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for resolving administrative disputes," and Article 162 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law stipulate that, "(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."

In accordance with Article 20 of the Administrative Code, "If an administrative activity violates a legitimate right or freedom established by law, this right may be claimed through an administrative litigation action, [...]", and according to Article 17, "A violated right is any right or freedom established by law to which an administrative activity causes harm."

In this case, Article 78 para. (1) of the Administrative Code establishes that "(1) The administrative procedure is completed by performing an administrative operation or by issuing an individual administrative act, namely concluding an administrative contract."

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

At the same time, from the systematic interpretation of Article 17, Article 20, Article 166, and Article 207 of the Administrative Code, it results that the admissibility of a preliminary application is determined by the claim of a violated right through administrative activity.

At the same time, taking into account the content of what was formulated by the creditor and, arising from the need to ensure an effective, transparent, and exhaustive examination, the CNPF will proceed to verify the arguments invoked through the Preliminary Application, including regarding the correctness of the assessments presented in letter No. 05-5/3427.

In this case, the petition dated 26.06.2026, submitted by the petitioner, primarily concerned 2 aspects: establishing the "total cost of the credit higher than the disbursed value," and "establishing abusive clauses, including ex officio," respectively, the preliminary examination of the submitted application can be realized in the light of the defined object of the administrative procedure.

2. Regarding the alleged violation of the total cost of the credit, it should be noted that, according to Article 15(1) para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts (Law No. 202/2013), "(1) The following are prohibited: a) the application of the annual interest rate specified in the credit contract – in the event that this exceeds 50%, and all other payments related (commissions, taxes, penalties, and any other type of payment), except for interest, per one day of credit exceed 0.04% of the total value of the credit (the financed value, in the case of a financial leasing contract) for the term of actual use of the credit by the consumer; b) establishing the total cost of the credit, which includes interest, commissions, taxes, penalties, and any other type of payment, higher than the disbursed value according to the respective contract or the financed value in the financial leasing contract – in the case of a credit that is not intended for the purchase, construction, or renovation (modernization) of a residence secured by real estate to ensure the payment obligation of the respective credit."

Regarding the circumstances of the case, including within the framework of the preliminary procedure, the petitioner invokes the exceeding of the limit established in letter b) of the cited norm above, basing his conclusion on the fact that, according to the Payment Schedule, the debtor is to repay the sum of 132,245.61 MDL, while the value of the credit amounts to 44,000.00 MDL.

Contradictorily, the sum of 132,245.61 MDL does not represent exclusively the payment obligations related to the Credit Contract, but also includes obligations related to a distinct contractual relationship – the Additional Agreement.

In the same order of ideas, according to point 3.4 of the General Conditions of the Credit Contract, the maximum total cost of the credit is 44,000.00 MDL, and according to point 2.6.1 of the General Conditions of the Credit Contract, the total value payable by the consumer is 88,000.00 MDL.

Therefore, the Agreement on the provision of extended services to personal account represents a distinct legal relationship from the Credit Contract. Thus, costs related to the Additional Agreement cannot be included in the total cost of the credit, or, according to Article 3 of Law No. 202/2013, "the total cost of the credit for consumers – all costs, including interest, commissions, taxes, and any other type of costs that the consumer must bear in connection with the credit contract and which are known to the creditor, except for notarial fees; costs for ancillary services related to the credit contract, in particular the average value of insurance premiums, are included in the case where obtaining the credit or obtaining it according to the clauses and conditions presented is conditioned by the conclusion of a service contract;"

In this case, the price of ancillary services is included in the total cost of the credit only in the case where obtaining the credit is conditioned by the conclusion of the respective service contract. In this specific case, according to the Pre-contractual Information, the creditor declares that obtaining the credit does not require the conclusion of an insurance contract or a contract regarding any other ancillary service. Therefore, from the documents administered within the framework of the administrative procedure, it did not result that the conclusion of the Credit Contract was conditioned by the conclusion of the Additional Agreement.

Moreover, from the examined documents, it is established that the Additional Agreement contains its own clauses regarding the termination of contractual relations. Thus, according to point 6 of the Additional Agreement, it may terminate by mutual agreement, and according to sub-point 6.2, each party is entitled to declare unilateral resolution, by prior notification to the other party, the effects of which take place after the expiration of a term of 3 days from the date of receipt of the notification.

Therefore, the CNPF established that the grounds for maintaining the violation of the provisions of Article 15(1) para. (1) letter b) of Law No. 202/2013 are not met, since the sum invoked in the petition does not represent the total cost, related exclusively to the Credit Contract.

Additionally, through letter No. 05-5/3427, the CNPF presented the results of the verification and compliance with the requirements provided in Article 15(1) para. (1) letter a) of Law No. 202/2013, establishing that the annual interest rate, provided in the Credit Contract, is 49.9685 percent, and the credit management commission is established at 0.04 percent per day, with no exceeding of the limits established by law being identified.

3. Regarding the establishment of the abusive nature of the clauses, the CNPF evaluated the contractual clauses in the light of identifying the abusive nature of these in the sense of the provisions of Articles 1069 – 1072, 1075 – 1079, and Article 1081 of the Civil Code.

In accordance with Article 1072 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "In a contract between a professional and a consumer, a clause that has not been individually negotiated is considered abusive if it is proposed by the professional and considerably disadvantages, contrary to good faith, the consumer."

The cited norm provides two cumulative conditions to consider a clause abusive: the clause proposed by the professional must not be individually negotiated (the criterion of transparency and negotiations) and the considerable disadvantageous character (the criterion of proportionality and good faith). Moreover, the Credit Contract was subject to verification in the light of the list of abusive clauses, provided in Articles 1077 – 1079. In this context, the CNPF did not identify certain indicators that would cast doubt on the non-compliance with the transparency and good faith test criteria or clauses similar to those included in the list of clauses considered abusive in the contract concluded between a professional and a consumer.

Thus, the CNPF carried out a complete, objective, and impartial examination of the aspects invoked within the framework of the administrative procedure, completed with letter No. 05-5/3427, respecting the requirements of the Administrative Code and exercising competencies strictly within the limits and conditions established by law. At the same time, the clarifications and conclusions formulated through letter No. 05-5/3427 relate exclusively to the object and the concrete requests, submitted by the petitioner within the framework of the administrative procedure.

4. Regarding the preliminary procedure, it should be noted that, according to the Order of the Vice-President of the CNPF No. 749 dated 01.09.2026 regarding the extension of the term of the preliminary procedure, initiated through the Preliminary Application of Mr. […], submitted by the representative of Mr […], the general term of the preliminary procedure was extended until 20.09.2026.

Also, the aforementioned Order was brought to the knowledge of the creditor through CNPF letter No. 06-5/3993 dated 02.09.2026, sent to the electronic address […].

Additionally, through the same letter, in accordance with the provisions of Article 94 of the Administrative Code, the petitioner was informed about the exercise of the right to be heard, regarding the circumstances relevant to the act that is to be adopted, as well as about the fact that the hearing is to be made in writing, by presenting, until 11.09.2026 (inclusive), to the address of the CNPF, the opinion with the title of hearing, which may include arguments, additional to those related, relevant for the resolution of the Preliminary Application.

Consequently, within the term established by the CNPF, the petitioner did not present the exposition with the title of hearing in written form.

From the considerations recorded above, on the basis of Article 18 para. (3), Article 20 para. (1), para. (6), and para. (7), and Article 22 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection, Article 164 para. (1) and para. (2) letter b), Article 167 para. (3), Article 169 para. (2), and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, point 16 and point 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 Application of Mr. […], submitted by his representative, Mr. […], contesting the letter of the National Financial Market Commission No. 05-5/3427 dated 10.08.2026 regarding the completion of the administrative procedure, initiated based on the petition submitted by Mr. […], representative of Mr. […] (registered at the CNPF with No. 7286 on 21.08.2026) is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested with an administrative litigation action, submitted to the Chisinau Court, Râșcani 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 according to legislation, and is published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI,
PRESIDENT