Decision No. 51/4 of 28 October 2025 Regarding the Preliminary Request for Partial Annulment of CNPF Decision No. 44/1 of 12 September 2025 Concerning OCN EASY CREDIT SRL

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA NATIONAL COMMISSION OF THE FINANCIAL MARKET 77 Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd., Chisinau, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md

DECISION 28 October 2025 No. 51/4

Regarding the Preliminary Request for Partial Annulment of Decision No. 44/1 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 12.09.2025 concerning the petition registered with the National Commission of the Financial Market under No. 8195 on 18.11.2024, in relation to OCN "EASY CREDIT" SRL

On 10.10.2025, within the National Commission of the Financial Market (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Request No. 5020/2025 (registered under No. 7430), submitted by OCN "EASY CREDIT" SRL (Company/Participant/Creditor), was registered, regarding the partial annulment of the unfavorable illegal administrative act (Preliminary Request), by which the following are requested:

1. To suspend the execution of the administrative act during the examination of the preliminary request;
2. To examine this preliminary request objectively, equidistantly, multi-aspectually, and correctly;
3. To order the partial annulment or withdrawal of Decision No. 44/1 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 12.09.2025, specifically the following findings:

3.1. Partial annulment or withdrawal of point 1 of the operative part of the Decision concerning the finding of violation of Art. 3 of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts.

3.2. Partial annulment or withdrawal of point 2 of the operative part of the Decision, by which the abusive nature of the clauses in Credit Contract No. [...] dated 07.11.2019 was found, contained in:

1. Section 5.02 "Consequences of Non-Performance. Penalty Clause", where, "(a) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of five consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 75.00 (seventy-five) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 6th day of non-performance. (b) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of fifteen consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 150.00 (one hundred fifty) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 16th day of non-performance. (c) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of 45 consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 750.00 (seven hundred fifty) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 46th day of non-performance.";
2. Article IV Commitments lit. (b), in the part concerning the phrase "all costs, payments and expenses incurred by Easy Credit in connection with this Contract, including expenses related to debt collection."

3.3. Partial annulment or withdrawal of point 3 of the operative part of the Decision, by which the abusive nature of the clauses in Credit Contract No. [...] dated 20.01.2020 was found, contained in:

1. Section 5.02 "Consequences of Non-Performance. Penalty Clause", where, "(a) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of five consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 75.00 (seventy-five) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 6th day of non-performance. (b) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of fifteen consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 150.00 (one hundred fifty) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 16th day of non-performance. (c) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of 45 consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 750.00 (seven hundred fifty) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 46th day of non-performance.";
2. Article IV Commitments lit. (b), in the part concerning the phrase "all costs, payments and expenses incurred by Easy Credit in connection with this Contract, including expenses related to debt collection.";

3.4. Partial annulment or withdrawal of point 4 of the operative part of the Decision, by which it was ordered that an action be submitted to the court, in order to request the declaration of nullity of the abusive clauses indicated in points 2 and 3."

In the case, in order to ensure a full, objective, and transparent investigation that offers the real possibility of analyzing the creditor's claim, the creditor is to be communicated that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in preliminary order, will be carried out by distinct enforcers within the CNPF.

In fact, on 18.11.2024, within the CNPF, the petition of Ms. [...] (debtor/consumer) was registered (under No. 8195), by which the intervention of the CNPF was requested to verify the respect of consumer rights within the legal relationships established on the basis of credit contracts No. [...] dated 07.11.2019 and No. [...] dated 20.01.2020 (Contracts), concluded between OCN "EASY CREDIT" SRL and the debtor.

Following the investigations carried out within the respective administrative procedure, the analysis of the materials/evidence presented by the participants in the procedure, through the prism of the regulatory framework applicable to the contractual relationships, the CNPF, on 12.09.2025, adopted Decision No. 44/1 regarding the petition registered with the National Commission of the Financial Market under No. 8195 on 18.11.2024, in relation to OCN "EASY CREDIT" SRL (Decision No. 44/1/2025/Contested Decision).

According to the Contested Decision, the CNPF found that the creditor violated Art. 3 and Art. 10 para. (3) lit. p) and lit. s) of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts (Law No. 202/2013).

At the same time, by Decision No. 44/1/2025, the CNPF found the abusive nature of the clauses in Credit Contract No. [...] dated 07.11.2019, contained in:

1. Section 5.02 "Consequences of Non-Performance. Penalty Clause", where, "(a) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of five consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 75.00 (seventy-five) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 6th day of non-performance. (b) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of fifteen consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 150.00 (one hundred fifty) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 16th day of non-performance. (c) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of 45 consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 750.00 (seven hundred fifty) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 46th day of non-performance.";
2. Article IV Commitments lit. (b), in the part concerning the phrase "all costs, payments and expenses incurred by Easy Credit in connection with this Contract, including expenses related to debt collection.".

Additionally, the abusive nature of the clauses in Credit Contract No. [...] dated 20.01.2020 was found, contained in:

1. Section 5.02 "Consequences of Non-Performance. Penalty Clause", where, "(a) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of five consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 75.00 (seventy-five) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 6th day of non-performance. (b) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of fifteen consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 150.00 (one hundred fifty) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 16th day of non-performance. (c) In the event that the Non-Performance Case specified in Section 5.01, lit. (a) continues for a period of 45 consecutive days, the Borrower is obliged to pay a penalty clause to Easy Credit in the amount of 750.00 (seven hundred fifty) lei. The penalty clause will be payable from the 46th day of non-performance.";
2. Article IV Commitments lit. (b), in the part concerning the phrase "all costs, payments and expenses incurred by Easy Credit in connection with this Contract, including expenses related to debt collection.".

Not agreeing with the findings of the CNPF, the creditor submitted a Preliminary Request, by which it requests the partial annulment of the Contested Decision, as well as the suspension of its execution.

Subsidiarily, the request for suspension of the execution of the Contested Decision (point 1 of the Preliminary Request) was rejected as unfounded, by CNPF Decision No. 50/1 dated 20.10.2025 regarding the Request for Suspension of Execution of Decision No. 44/1 of the National Commission of the Financial Market dated 12.09.2025 concerning the petition registered with the National Commission of the Financial Market under No. 8195 on 18.11.2024, in relation to OCN "EASY CREDIT" SRL.

Regarding the creditor's request to examine the preliminary request objectively, equidistantly, multi-aspectually, and correctly (point 2 of the Preliminary Request), it is to be noted that the CNPF examines, in preliminary order, the arguments invoked by the Company in strict compliance with the applicable legal provisions.

In this regard, the adoption of the decision is based exclusively on the analysis of the materials and evidence in the administrative file, through the prism of the corresponding legal regulations.

Moreover, the implicit analysis of the arguments fixed in the Preliminary Request, in relation to the findings of the supervisory authority in the Contested Decision, through the prism of the norms of Law No. 202/2013 and the Civil Code, excludes elements of subjectivism.

In this context, the Administrative Code establishes that administrative activity is carried out within the limits of its discretionary right, which implies the priority of reducing the decision to the legal consequence, which, in essence, ensures the objectivity of the conclusions of the supervisory authority. This desideratum applies both in relation to the Contested Decision and to the Preliminary Request.

As for the equidistance of the administrative procedure, it is to be emphasized that the supervisory authority acted with impartiality and equal treatment in relation to the petitioner. For this purpose, to guarantee an impartial perspective, the re-examination of the factual and legal circumstances was entrusted to another enforcer within the CNPF distinct from those who handled the initial administrative procedure that led to the adoption of Decision No. 44/1/2025. This functional separation serves to prevent the bias of analysis caused by the tendency to confirm previous conclusions.

At the same time, the equidistance of the preliminary procedure was ensured by the combined application of the norms of the Administrative Code and the repeated guarantee of the right to be heard of the participant, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 94 of the Administrative Code.

In the spirit of multi-aspectual analysis, the CNPF integrated into its decision all relevant dimensions of the case, without limiting itself to a superficial analysis, addressing each argument invoked by the petitioner, regardless of its nature (legal, procedural, or opportunistic).

As a result, each contractual clause invoked was examined in detail.

Regarding the correct examination of the Preliminary Request, it is to be pointed out that this takes place implicitly by ensuring the objective and equidistant nature of the preliminary procedure and the investigation.

Additionally, OCN "EASY CREDIT" SRL benefited from all procedural rights provided by law (information, participation, reasonable time to respond, and the right to be heard).

Complementarily, the final decision is comprehensively motivated, the legal grounds are mentioned, and the adopted solution is justified, and all procedural formalities are strictly respected.

By analyzing the arguments exposed in the Preliminary Request, through the prism of the applicable legal provisions, it will be assessed whether they are of a nature to overturn the findings of the supervisory authority, as follows:

1. In law, Art. 19 of the Administrative Code provides that "The Preliminary Request is the institution that offers a pre-litigation means of resolving administrative disputes," and Art. 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 Request may be directed towards: a) the total or partial annulment of an illegal or null individual administrative act; [...]".

2. Under the conditions of Art. 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Request may be submitted only if the person claims the rights violated by the issuance or rejection of the issuance of an individual administrative act," and in accordance with Art. 167 para. (1) and para. (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 total 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 Art. 60 para. (2)-(5) apply correspondingly."

3. With reference to the allegations of the participant in point A of the Preliminary Request, exposed in disagreement with the CNPF finding in point 1 of the Contested Decision, according to which "the notions provided for in Art. 3 of the Law are the notions used specifically in that Law No. 202/2013, and the legislator reveals their meaning for a good understanding and interpretation of this Law," these cannot be retained by the supervisory authority as relevant.

3.1. In accordance with Art. 1 of Law No. 202/2013, "The purpose of this law is the development of the legal framework necessary for ensuring the protection of the economic interests of consumers by creating fair conditions for obtaining consumer credits, as well as by establishing norms of responsible behavior of creditors in granting consumer credits."

3.2. Accordingly, by adopting Law No. 202/2013, the state pursued the objective of establishing a specific legal regime for regulating the legal relationships of granting consumer credits, which ensures enhanced protection of consumers of financial services, based on the net inferior position of consumers in relation to professional creditors and the lack of extensive knowledge in the fields related to granting credits.

3.3. Thus, by establishing the requirement to present pre-contractual information via the form at Annex No. 1 to Law No. 202/2013, the legislator pursued the goal that all professional creditors provide consumers with the basic information necessary through the use of unified/identical terms, to facilitate the understanding of the presented information and to offer the possibility of comparing multiple offers.

3.4. Otherwise, the operation by creditors of distinct terms from those provided in Law No. 202/2013, to convey the same information, creates difficulties for consumers and may induce error through the legal effects that the contract may produce.

3.5. By way of pertinent analogy, it is to be specified that, similarly, for legal accessibility, the legislator established, by way of principle, the use of terminology, in a constant, uniform manner and in correspondence with that applied in other normative acts (Art. 54 para. (1) of Law No. 100/2017 on normative acts).

3.6. In this sense, the direct use of terms established by the special law constitutes a premise for ensuring by professionals the clarity and transparency, the protection of consumer rights by avoiding misleading through the terminology used, consequently, ensuring the conformity and uniformity of the legal act with the normative act.

4. Regarding the arguments of the creditor, exposed in disagreement with the CNPF conclusion, according to which the use in the credit contract of notions specific to a loan contract may mislead the consumer through the legal effects, it is to be noted that these cannot be considered well-founded for the following reasons:

4.1. It cannot be denied that the Civil Code makes a distinction between the loan contract and the credit contract, attributing separate legal regimes to them. Namely, the norms regulating the loan are contained in Art. 1242 – Art. 1250 of the Civil Code, and the regulatory norms of credit are provided for in Art. 1763 – Art. 1773 of the same Code.

4.2. Although both contracts presuppose the granting of a sum of money, their legal nature and effects are distinct.

4.3. While the loan contract may be concluded between any persons and has as its object the simple transfer of ownership of a sum of money, with the obligation of restitution, the credit contract presupposes the granting of a banking or non-banking financial service by a professional creditor.

Unlike the loan contract, the credit contract is regulated by distinct norms. Moreover, in the case of granting a credit to a consumer, the special norms directly become applicable, which pursue the protection of the consumer and the establishment of an enhanced transparency regime.

4.4. Subsequently, the use in the credit contract of terminology specific to the loan, such as "borrower" and "lender" instead of "debtor" and "creditor", may create confusion regarding the rights and obligations of the parties. This may affect the consumer's understanding of the nature of the contracted financial product, the associated costs, and the guarantees instituted, contrary to the principles of correct and complete information, provided for by the legislation in the field of consumer protection of financial services.

4.5. In this sense, it is necessary to emphasize that in the relationships between a professional creditor and a consumer, the law establishes an asymmetry of protection in favor of the consumer, based on the presumption of professional superiority of the creditor in financial and legal matters. By virtue of this position, the creditor has not only the obligation to respect the imperative legal provisions but also an obligation of enhanced diligence in drafting and presenting contractual clauses, so that the consumer can correctly understand the content and consequences of the assumed commitment.

4.6. Therefore, even in the situation where the terms used by the creditor do not produce direct legal effects contrary to the law, the mere fact that they may generate confusion or erroneous perceptions regarding the legal nature of the contractual relationship is sufficient to justify the intervention of the supervisory authority.

4.7. In this sense, the constant practice of the CNPF confirms that the terminology used in credit contracts must correspond to the specific legal framework, to avoid misinterpretations by the consumer.

At the same time, according to the principle of good faith, consecrated in Art. 10 of the Civil Code, the professional is obliged to act with loyalty and transparency in relations with the consumer, including by using clear, precise language and in conformity with the legal nature of the economic operation.

4.8. Additionally, it is to be pointed out that the necessity of respecting legal terminology derives from the fact that the normative acts in force establish, expressly, distinct notions for the loan contract and the credit contract, conferring them different legal regimes and effects. Consequently, the use of terminology corresponding to each type of contract represents a requirement imposed by law, intended to ensure clarity and correctness of the legal relationships between the parties, including from the perspective of the certain establishment of the legal regime applicable to the act.

4.9. It cannot go unnoticed that, under the conditions that the professional creditor has specialized structures and personnel with specific legal duties, an omission of the nature of using terms specific to the loan contract in a credit contract is unacceptable. Such a discrepancy is liable to be treated as a lack of rigor in applying the regulatory framework, which contradicts the principles of transparency, professionalism, and diligence.

4.10. Under these conditions, the CNPF acted, justifiably, within the limits of its legal competence, by finding the terminological non-compliance, with the aim of ensuring a uniform practice and in accordance with the legal provisions applicable in the field of financial services.

4.11. Consequently, the creditor's assertions regarding the irrelevance of the terminology used cannot be accepted, as they omit the essential role of the professional creditor to ensure correct and complete information to the consumer, according to the transparency and prudence requirements imposed by sectoral legislation.

5. Regarding the arguments from point B of the Preliminary Request, invoked by the creditor in disagreement with the finding of the abusive nature of the clauses contained in Section 5.02 "Consequences of Non-Performance. Penalty Clause" and Article IV Commitments lit. (b) of the Contracts, it is to be mentioned that the Contested Decision contains the necessary motivation, including the considerations exposed for each clause separately, with the indication of the applicable legal norms, a sufficient description of the factual and legal reasons that formed the basis for its adoption, respecting the limits of the discretionary right.

5.1. At the same time, it is to be highlighted that, through the prism of the norms contained in Art. 37 para. (4) – (5) of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection (Law No. 105/2003), Decision No. 44/1/2025 produces effects only from the moment the court recognizes the abusive nature of the contractual clauses, reproduced in points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the Contested Decision, and finally, declares their nullity.

5.2. Subsequently, in the event that the abusive nature of the contractual clauses, elaborated to be used in a multitude of contracts, is found, only the court may declare the nullity of these clauses, order their exclusion from the contract, imposing on the professional the obligation to exclude these clauses from contracts with the same object, concluded with other consumers, as well as the prohibition of including such clauses in other contracts to be concluded with consumers.

5.3. In this context, it is necessary to highlight the fact that the evaluation of contractual clauses and the issuance of the final decision on whether they are or are not abusive, implicitly the finding of the nullity of abusive clauses, is carried out, according to civil legislation, in civil procedure and constitutes the prerogative of the judge specialized in civil matters.

5.4. For its part, the verification of the legality of unfavorable individual administrative acts, which, according to Art. 191 para. (1), in conjunction with Art. 192 para. (2) of the Administrative Code, is carried out by judges specialized in examining administrative litigation actions,