Decision No. 51/5 regarding Preliminary Request No. 1 against CNPF Letter No. 05-5/3656 — NCFM — MD

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 October 28, 2025 No. 51/5 Regarding Preliminary Request No. 1, submitted by Mr. [...] on October 8, 2025, against CNPF Letter No. 05-5/3656 dated September 11, 2025

On October 8, 2025, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), Preliminary Request No. 1, submitted by Mr. [...] (participant/petitioner), was registered (with No. 7357), requesting:

"1. Cancellation/abrogation of the solution communicated via Letter No. 05-5/3656 dated 11.09.2025 as an unjustified and illegal administrative operation, with resumption of the administrative procedure for re-examination on the merits of Petition No. 5754 dated 29.07.2025;
2. Issuance of a motivated individual administrative act that explicitly provides a response to each claim in Petition No. 5754, indicating applicable norms and appeal routes;
3. Resolution of the preliminary request within 15 days and, if applicable, forwarding to the electronic address of the petitioner's representative, according to Articles 167-168 of the Administrative Code."

In fact, it should be noted that on July 29, 2025, within the CNPF, the petition of Mr. [...] was registered (with No. 5754), requesting:

"1. Verification of the legality of issuing compulsory third-party liability insurance policy No. RCAI-[...] dated 30.03.2023, in relation to the provisions of Law No. 106/2022 and the Civil Code;
2. Determination of the applicability of Law No. 106/2022 to insurance policy No. RCAI-[...] dated 30.03.2023, given that its effects began on 09.07.2023;
3. Imposition of necessary measures against S.A. "Intact General Insurance" for issuing a policy with incorrect application of legal norms;
4. Issuance of an official interpretation regarding the application of Law No. 106/2022 to policies issued before April 1, 2023, but with legal effects subsequent to that date."

In this case, to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation that offers the real possibility of analyzing the participant's claims, 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 distinguished executors within the CNPF.

In this context, the subject of the petition concerned the actions of the Company "INTACT GENERAL INSURANCE" SA (insurer), related to the regularization of the Damage File, opened following the road accident on March 16, 2024.

Subsequently, that administrative procedure was concluded by the issuance of CNPF Letter No. 05-5/3656 dated September 11, 2025 (Contested Letter/Contested Act), communicated to the petitioner in accordance with legislation.

Not agreeing with the response provided by the CNPF, the participant submitted a Preliminary Request with the aforementioned requests.

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

In law, Article 19 of the Administrative Code provides that "The Preliminary Request 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 Request may be directed towards:
a) cancellation in whole or in part of an illegal or null individual administrative act; b) issuance of an individual administrative act".
In accordance with Article 20 of the Administrative Code, "If a legitimate right or a liberty established by law is violated by an administrative activity, this right may be claimed through an administrative litigation action, [...]", and according to Article 17, "A damaged right is any right or liberty established by law to which/which is infringed upon by administrative activity."
Under the conditions of Article 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Request may be submitted only if the person claims rights violated by the issuance or rejection of issuance of an individual administrative act," and in accordance with Article 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 cancels 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 para. (2)-(5) apply correspondingly."
In this case, Article 78 para. (1) of the Administrative Code establishes that "(1) The administrative procedure is concluded by performing an administrative operation or by issuing an individual administrative act, respectively concluding an administrative contract."
At the same time, according to Article 15 of the Administrative Code, administrative operations are defined as "[...] manifestations of will or activities of public authorities that do not themselves produce legal effects. Administrative operations can only be contested simultaneously with the individual administrative act, with the exception of executive administrative operations or those directed against a third party." Thus, essential to administrative operations is the fact that they do not produce legal effects.
Specifically, the lack of legal effects of administrative operations implies the lack of coercive character and the fact that they do not create, modify, or extinguish a legal relationship or rights and obligations of the parties to the legal relationship; rather, in the case of concluding administrative procedures, administrative operations, similar to the one in this case, constitute only a factual exposition.
Complementarily, from the systematic interpretation of Articles 17, 20, 166, and 207 of the Administrative Code, it results that the admissibility of a preliminary request is determined by the claim of a damaged right through administrative activity.
In this case, in the absence of a constraining effect on the participant, the Contested Act does not interfere with his rights or obligations, respectively, there is no revelation of a damaged right.
Nevertheless, on principles of good faith, transparency, and comprehensibility of the administrative procedure, the assessment of the legality of the Contested Act presupposes verification of the correctness of the response provided by submitting the analysis, repeatedly, of the factual circumstances established in light of the legislation applicable to the case, within the limits of competencies attributed by law to the CNPF, taking into account, at the same time, the allegations invoked by the participant in the Preliminary Request.
Consequently, the participant requests the cancellation/abrogation of the solution communicated via Letter No. 05-5/3656 dated 11.09.2025 as an unjustified and illegal administrative operation, with resumption of the administrative procedure for re-examination on the merits of Petition No. 5754 dated 29.07.2025, invoking as a reason the lack of sufficient motivation of the adopted solution and the omission of information regarding appeal routes.
Primarily, the participant considers that, through the Contested Letter, it is not explained why Law No. 106/2022 on compulsory civil liability insurance for damages caused by vehicles (Law No. 106/2022) does not have incidence on the insurance policy, which produced effects during the period of action of Law No. 106/2022.
With reference to this aspect, it is attested that the response recorded in the Contested Letter is correct and objective under the circumstances of the case. This is based on the transitional provisions contained in Article 44 para. (1) and para. (2) of Law No. 106/2022, according to which "(1) Legal acts and facts concluded or, as the case may be, committed or produced before the entry into force of this law cannot generate other legal effects than those provided by the legislation in force at the date of conclusion or, as the case may be, commission or production. (2) This law applies to all compulsory third-party liability insurance contracts issued after the date of its entry into force and in relation to all damages compensated based on them."
Moreover, the aforementioned norms contain explicit regulations that do not require interpretations, and which, in particular, were stipulated in transitional and final provisions, to avoid ambiguities and legal uncertainties in the application of the law in time and to provide the solution for the legal classification of factual situations.
Additionally, it should be noted that these transitional provisions are formulated in the spirit of the norm stipulated in Article 7 para. (4) of the Civil Code, in accordance with which "(4) In the case of contractual legal situations in progress at the date of entry into force of the new law, the old law will continue to govern the nature and extent of the parties' rights and obligations, as well as any other contractual effects, unless the new law provides otherwise."
Respectively, the transitional norm at Article 44 para. (1) of Law No. 106/2022 does not innovate, but reaffirms the general rule, regulated at Article 7 para. (4) of the Civil Code, regarding the application of the old law to the effects of contractual relationships.
In the same order of ideas, with reference to the request to issue an official interpretation regarding the application of Law No. 106/2022 to policies issued before 01.04.2023, but with legal effects subsequent to that date, it should be specified that, according to Article 71 para. (3) of Law No. 100/2017, "(3) Interpretation is official when it is carried out through normative acts of interpretation or through acts of application of legal norms by authorized institutions."
Correspondingly, according to Article 72 para. (2) - (5) of the same law, "(2) Official interpretation of laws, other than those mentioned in para.(1), is realized exclusively by Parliament through the adoption of interpretation laws. (3) Official interpretation of Government ordinances is realized by the Government through the adoption of ordinances, within the limit of the authorization period, or by Parliament through the adoption of interpretation laws, outside of it. (4) Acts of official interpretation of normative acts, other than those mentioned in para.(1)-(3), are adopted, approved, or issued by the authorities that adopted, approved, or issued the acts subject to interpretation. (5) The normative act is interpreted through a normative act of the same category and legal force."
Therefore, the CNPF is not authorized to realize official interpretations of laws, this prerogative being granted to the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova.
With reference to the request to verify the legality of issuing insurance policy No. RCAI-[...] dated 30.03.2023, in relation to the provisions of Law No. 106/2022 and those of the Civil Code, it should be pointed out the non-application of Law No. 106/2022 to insurance contracts and policies issued before its entry into force (01.04.2023).
Complementarily, it is necessary to specify that, according to Article 1830 para. (3) of the Civil Code, "(3) The insurance contract is formed from the applicant's request, the insurance policy issued by the insurer and the general insurance conditions applicable, as well as from other contractual conditions included in the contract according to law."
In turn, in accordance with the notion contained in Article 2 of Law No. 414/2006 on compulsory civil liability insurance for damages caused by motor vehicles (Law No. 414/2006), "RCA insurance policy – compulsory third-party liability auto insurance policy valid within the territory of the Republic of Moldova, which proves the conclusion of the compulsory third-party liability auto insurance contract;".
Article 3 of Law No. 106/2022 contains a similar notion, namely: "compulsory RCA insurance policy – a document, valid within the territory of the Republic of Moldova, which proves the conclusion of the internal compulsory RCA insurance contract and certifies the existence of this insurance;".
From the analysis of the aforementioned norms, it results clearly that the insurance policy constitutes proof of the conclusion of the insurance contract, being an integral part of it. This uniform regulation of the legal nature of the insurance policy confirms that the moment of issuance of the insurance policy is equivalent to the moment of conclusion of the insurance contract, and this element is essential for delimiting the temporal applicability of the new law.
Respectively, even if the insurance period coincided with the period during which the new law governed, the insurance contract was concluded and the insurance policy was issued before the application of Law No. 106/2022, accordingly, they cannot be subject to the new regulation.
Moreover, the decisive moment for establishing the applicable legal regime is the date of issuance of the insurance policy, which equates to the moment of conclusion of the insurance contract, according to Article 1830 para. (3) of the Civil Code and definitions in Law No. 414/2006 and Law No. 106/2022.
Thus, the mere circumstance that the insured period covers time intervals subsequent to the entry into force of the new law is not relevant, since the contract (policy) of insurance was issued prior.
The retroactive application of Law No. 106/2022 under these conditions would contravene, directly, the transitional provisions at Article 44 para. (1), which consecrate the principle of non-retroactivity of legal effects.
With reference to the participant's question of why, in this case, the insurance policy issued on 30.03.2023, which produces effects starting from 09.07.2023 and until 08.07.2023 (in fact, 08.07.2024), does not violate the provisions of para. (1) of Article 9 of Law No. 414/2006, which expressly provides that, "(1) The compulsory third-party liability auto insurance contract is concluded for a term of 12 months, with the exceptions provided in para.(2)-(4).", it should be explained that the 12-month term represents the insurance period, which, in the sense of Article 1835 of the Civil Code, "is the time interval during which the insurer bears liability and for which the insurance premium is established."
In this sense, the 12-month term is not calculated from the date of signing the insurance contract, the latter possibly being a date prior to the day when the insurance begins. Therefore, no violation of Article 9 para. (1) of Law No. 414/2006 is revealed.
Regarding the alleged inactions of the CNPF to verify if the insurer fulfilled the obligation to inform, clearly and completely, the consumer prior to the issuance of the insurance policy, it is necessary to specify that the internal compulsory third-party liability auto insurance contract (Contract) was concluded directly between the insurer and Mr. [...], in the capacity of the insurance applicant.
In this context, it should be recorded that on August 14, 2025, the insurer presented explanations, to which it annexes copies of documents relevant to the case (registered at CNPF with No. 6120), among which it is also attested the copy of the Request for Conclusion of Internal Compulsory Third-Party Liability Auto Insurance Contract (Request), submitted on March 30, 2023, signed by Mr. [...].
According to Article 1830 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) For the conclusion of the insurance contract, the insurance applicant presents to the insurer a request or a questionnaire (the applicant's request) in written form, in which he indicates his interest in insurance or declares verbally that he wishes to conclude an insurance contract. The verbal declaration does not exempt from the necessity of submitting a written insurance request."
In correspondence with the aforementioned norm, Mr. [...] requested the conclusion of the Contract under the conditions of admission to drive the vehicle by a limited number of persons, namely only the insurance applicant (point 5 of the Request), for a period of 12 months, starting from July 9, 2023 to July 8, 2024 (point 6 of the Request).
Therefore, in the absence of any objections or complaints formulated by the insurance applicant regarding the alleged lack of information or inadequate information, the aspects signaled by the participant are irrelevant.
With reference to the request to impose necessary measures against S.A. "Intact General Insurance" for issuing a policy with incorrect application of legal norms, it is attested the subsidiary character of this request, as satisfaction of the same is determined by the solution adopted with reference to the main request. Therefore, in the situation where the correctness of the response provided to the petitioner through the Contested Letter is attested, the requested actions are not claimed to be undertaken.
Regarding the criticism concerning the non-indication of appeal routes in the Contested Letter, it is necessary to specify that, in accordance with Article 78 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, "(1) The administrative procedure is concluded by performing an administrative operation or by issuing an individual administrative act, respectively concluding an administrative contract."
In turn, in light of Article 10 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, "(1) The individual administrative act is any provision, decision, or other official measure undertaken by the public authority for regulating an individual case in the field of public law, with the aim of producing immediate legal effects, through the creation, modification, or extinction of public law legal relationships."
In this case, the Contested Letter does not meet the legal conditions of an individual administrative act, as it does not produce direct legal effects and does not determine modifications in the sphere of rights and obligations of the participant.
From this perspective, the Contested Act constitutes an administrative operation, in the sense of Article 15 of the Administrative Code.
In turn, it should be noted that the obligation to include information regarding the exercise of appeal routes is provided exclusively for individual administrative acts, according to Article 120 of the Administrative Code.
Regarding the preliminary procedure, it should be noted that, by the Disposition of the President of the CNPF No. 1100 dated October 21, 2025, regarding the extension of the preliminary procedure term, initiated by Preliminary Request No. 1, submitted by Mr. [...] on October 8, 2025 (Disposition), it was extended by 15 days, until November 7, 2025.
This Disposition was communicated to the participant via CNPF Letter No. 06-6/4160 dated October 21, 2025.
Also via the same letter, the participant was informed about the right to be heard, under Article 94 of the Administrative Code, being granted a term, until October 23, 2025, 17:00, for sending, to the electronic address office@cnpf.md, an exposition that would contain arguments additional to those related in the Preliminary Request, in case they can be formulated, which, until now, has not been submitted.

Based on the aforementioned factual and legal reasons, the Preliminary Request should be rejected.

From the considerations exposed 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, Articles 17, 19, 162 para. (1) and para. (3) lit. a), 166, 167 para. (3), 169 para. (2) and para. (3) of the Administrative Code and 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:

Preliminary Request No. 1, submitted by Mr. [...] on October 8, 2025, against CNPF Letter No. 05-5/3656 dated September 11, 2025 (registered at CNPF with No. 7357 on October 8, 2025) is rejected.
This Decision may be contested with an administrative litigation action, submitted to the Chisinau Court, Rascani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev 3 St), within 30 days from the date of its communication.
This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption, is communicated to the recipient in accordance with legislation, and is published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI,
PRESIDENT