Decision No. 51/6 of 28 October 2025 on the Preliminary Application Submitted by OCN GREEN CREDIT SRL Regarding the Contestation of CNPF Decision No. 41/3

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 28 October 2025 No. 51/6

On the Preliminary Application submitted by OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL regarding the contestation of Decision No. 41/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 26.08.2025 concerning the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL

On 29.09.2025, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Application submitted by OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL (creditor/company/participant) was registered (No. 7124), in which it was primarily requested to "Annul Decision No. 41/3 of the Financial Market Commission dated 26 August 2025, and issue a decision rejecting the thematic control act of 15 August 2025 and establishing that O.C.N. 'Green Credit' S.R.L. has complied with legislative provisions;" (Preliminary Application).

In this case, it should be noted that, in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation that allows for a real analysis of the creditor's claims, the company is informed that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case is being conducted by distinguished executors within the CNPF.

In fact, in accordance with the CNPF Control Activity Plan for 2025 (adopted by CNPF Decision No. 13/1/2025), the control team conducted the thematic control mandated by CNPF Decision No. 32/2 dated 30.06.2025 regarding the thematic control within OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL.

The thematic control focused on the compliance of OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL with the provisions of Art. 5, Art. 10, Art. 15 para. (7), and Art. 20 of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts (Law No. 202/2013), applicable to non-bank credit contracts concluded between 29.05.2022 and 30.06.2025.

The thematic control was carried out based on the information and documents presented by the participant, at the request of the control team.

As a result of the thematic control, violations of the regulatory framework under verification were identified, which were recorded in the Provisional Control Act, accompanied by Annexes No. 1–8, which were sent to the participant on 01.08.2025.

Accordingly, on 08.08.2025, OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL submitted objections regarding the findings reflected in the Provisional Control Act.

Thus, on 15.08.2025, the control team sent to the creditor the Table of Divergences and the Act on the results of the thematic control regarding the verification of OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL's compliance with the provisions of Art. 5, Art. 10, Art. 15 para. (7), and Art. 20 of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts, applicable to non-bank credit contracts concluded between 29.05.2022 and 30.06.2025 (Control Act).

In the context of the matters mentioned in the Control Act, as well as those invoked by the participant in the Reference dated 08.08.2025 regarding the Provisional Act on the results of the thematic control, Decision No. 41/3/2025 on the results of the thematic control conducted within OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL (Decision No. 41/3/2025/Contested Decision) was adopted, by which the Control Act, with corresponding modifications, was approved, the violation by OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL of the provisions of Art. 5 para. (3) lit. l) and n), Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a), and Art. 20 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013 was established, and it was prescribed "the restitution of all payments provided for in the credit contracts, listed in Annexes No. 5 and No. 6 of the Control Act, mentioned in point 1 (which include interest, commissions, fees, penalties, late interest, and any other type of payment), except for the initial disbursed amount" and "compliance with legal provisions, including by: 4.1. providing complete pre-contractual information using the 'Standard Information on Consumer Credit' form, presented in Annex No. 1 of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts, respecting the established format; 4.2. ensuring the reduction of the total cost of the credit upon early repayment, in accordance with Art. 20 of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts."

Disagreeing with the CNPF findings, the creditor submitted a Preliminary Application, requesting the annulment of the Contested Decision.

Through the analysis of the arguments exposed in the Preliminary Application, in light of the legal provisions applicable to the case, it will be assessed whether they are of a nature to overturn the supervisory authority's findings.

A priori, in accordance with Art. 20 of the Administrative Code, "If an administrative activity infringes a legitimate right or a freedom established by law, this right may be claimed through an administrative litigation action, [...]", and according to Art. 17, "Damaged right is any right or freedom established by law to which damage is caused by administrative activity."

In law, according to Art. 19 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Application is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for resolving administrative disputes.", and, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 162 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law, "(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."

Under the conditions of Art. 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Application may be submitted only if the person claims rights infringed by the issuance or refusal to issue an individual administrative act."

In this case, in the Preliminary Application, the creditor invokes arguments only regarding the Credit Contracts included in Annex No. 5 and Annex No. 6 of the Control Act. Under these circumstances, in the absence of counterarguments from the creditor, it should be concluded that this party acknowledges the findings in the Control Act regarding the Credit Contracts from Annexes No. 1–4, and Annexes No. 7 and No. 8 of the Control Act.

With reference to the arguments brought into contradiction with Decision No. 41/3/2025, the following essential aspects will be retained:

1. With reference to the finding of violation of Art. 15 para. (7) of Law No. 202/2013 regarding the single administration commission, it should be mentioned that Annex No. 5 of the Control Act included 16 credit contracts, which contained a clause regarding the collection of a single commission at the time of contract signing.

1.1. Of the total of 16 credit contracts, in one case, the single administration commission is set at 1 percent of the total credit value, in one case – at 3 percent of the total credit value, in one case – at 4 percent of the total credit value, and in 13 cases, the single administration commission represents 5 percent of the total credit value.

At the same time, regarding 15 credit contracts, a violation of Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013, as amended by Law No. 93/2022 for the modification of certain normative acts (in force from 29.05.2022), was established, as these were concluded in the period 29.05.2022 – 02.07.2023.

At the same time, regarding Credit Contract No. […] dated 24.07.2024, a violation of Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013, as amended by Law No. 175/2023 for the modification of certain normative acts (competence of the National Financial Market Commission in the field of consumer protection of financial services), in force from 03.07.2023 (Law No. 175/2003), was established.

In this case, it should be noted that the prohibition of exceeding daily limits on the collection of payments related to the contract was instituted by Law No. 93/2022 for the modification of certain normative acts (in force from 29.05.2022), prior to the conclusion of the contracts in question.

Moreover, the modification made by Law No. 175/2003 has a character of concretizing the manner of application of the norm in accordance with the authority's practice and does not establish a distinct legal regime regarding the prohibition established by the legislator.

Therefore, the participant's allegations regarding the non-retroactive nature of legal norms are unfounded and do not constitute a critique against the legality of the Contested Decision.

Subsidiarily, it should be established that the approach invoked by the creditor is flawed.

Thus, in the Preliminary Application, the participant claims that "To establish the debtor's obligation for a day, the single administration commission must be divided by the entire period of the credit contract because it is collected only once during the contract."

On the contrary, from the analysis of contractual clauses and, implicitly, payment schedules, the information presented by the participant, as well as the data from the list of credit contracts concluded between 29.05.2022 and 30.06.2025, the CNPF established that debtors bear the costs related to the single administration commission at the moment of contract conclusion/signing. This fact is also revealed by the fact that, in the repayment schedule, related to credit contracts, this commission is indicated as being due and payable on the day of credit disbursement. In this regard, on the day of credit disbursement, the creditor collects the total value of the single commission, which exceeds the legal limit.

In conclusion, it should be noted that each cost is reported for the period for which it became due. In this way, the single administration commission, being collected on the day of credit disbursement, cannot be distributed over the entire period of the contract, as it does not represent a period of actual use.

Thus, on the day the credit is granted, the limit established by the norm at Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013 (regardless of the version) was not respected.

1.2. During the audience with the CNPF President on 03.10.2025 (audience), the representative of OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL presented 3 devices of court decisions, by which the collection of the claim resulting from credit contracts No. […], No. […], and No. […] was ordered.

In this case, regarding the aforementioned credit contracts, the CNPF established a violation of Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013 regarding the collection of the single administration commission, valued at 5 percent of the credit value, on the day of its disbursement, respectively, included in Annex No. 5 to the Control Act.

In law, according to Art. 329 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) In contracts with consumers, abusive clauses are null, as well as clauses by which derogation is made from legal provisions from which derogation is prohibited to the detriment of the consumer (protection nullity)."

Reported to the circumstances of the case, the judicial acts presented do not indicate the certain application by the court of the norm cited above. Therefore, given the enforceable character of the Contested Decision, the creditor must apply the sanction established in point 3 of the same individual administrative act, including regarding credit contracts No. […], No. […], and No. […].

At the same time, it should be noted that the competence to prescribe under Art. 15 para. (91) of Law No. 202/2013, at the date of adoption of the contested individual administrative act, was within the CNPF's attributes, the court being unable to apply it.

2. With reference to the finding of violation of Art. 15 para. (7) of Law No. 202/2013, corresponding to Annex No. 6 of the Control Act, it should be specified that 50 credit contracts with PASSIVE status (repaid early by the debtor) were included.

In this case, of the total of 50 credit contracts included in Annex No. 6, it was established that, in the case of 46 contracts, the monthly administration commission exceeds the legal cap of 0.04 percent of the total credit value for each day of credit, and in the case of 5 contracts, the cumulative sum of penalties and the monthly administration commission exceeds the same legal cap.

2.1. In this case, according to point 4.2. of the credit contracts, "The Client will pay the Organization an administration commission of 1.2% (one, twenty) of the credit sum, which is applied monthly to the credit sum and is paid according to the schedule attached to this Contract. The sum, number, and frequency of payments for the repayment of the monthly administration commission are indicated in the schedule attached to this Contract."

Complementarily, in the Preliminary Application, the creditor declares that the monthly administration commission "does not exceed legal provisions" regarding 48 of the 50 credit contracts included in Annex No. 6 (with the exception of credit contracts No. […] and No. […]).

Contradictorily, it should be mentioned that, according to Art. 20 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013, "(1) The Consumer has the right, at any time, to extinguish in total or in part their obligations arising from a credit contract. In this case, the consumer has the right to a reduction of the total cost of the credit, this reduction consisting of interest and costs related to the period between the early repayment date and the date provided for the termination of the credit contract."

Regarding the credit contracts in Annex No. 6, the control team established that the debtor's right to reduce the total cost of the credit was restricted, as, according to the information presented by the creditor, the debtor benefited only from the proportional reduction of interest, while the monthly administration commission was collected in full value for the installment established in the repayment schedule, during which the early payment was made.

Thus, the creditor's allegations regarding the respect of the legal limit of costs, with the exception of interest, of 0.04 percent of the credit contract value, are unfounded, as the Contested Decision does not concern the normal and uninterrupted execution of credit contracts, but only the situations of early repayment and the corresponding reduction of payments.

Moreover, it should be noted that the provision at Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013 operates with the phrase "application is prohibited," which nullifies arguments regarding the correspondence of contractual clauses with legal norms concerning credit contract limits.

In this case, the control group subjected to control the actual application of payments resulting from the credit contract, establishing, in this regard, that the monthly administration commission was collected in total, according to the repayment schedule, despite the fact that early payment occurred before the due date of that cost.

At the same time, based on account extracts, related to those contracts, it should be established that the monthly administration commission is calculated at the beginning of the period, according to the repayment schedule, and becomes due at the end of the period.

On the contrary, it should be noted that, in the interpretation of the supervisory authority, payments related to the credit contract, with the exception of interest, can only be collected upon the corresponding expiration of payment periods, according to the credit contract.

2.2. With reference to the interpretation regarding the number of decimal places, related to the limit established at Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013, it should be mentioned that the respective norm operates with the phrase "it is prohibited […] to exceed 0.04% of the total value of the credit."

Thus, the legislator established the maximum value of payments, with the exception of interest, that can be collected by the creditor.

In the interpretation of a limit value expressed numerically, any excess, regardless of its amplitude, constitutes a violation of the established limit. The limit value indicated of 0.04 percent represents a maximum threshold that cannot be exceeded – that is, only equality or a value lower than it is admitted. From a mathematical point of view, any value higher than the written digit, even by a difference of thousandths or hundredths, is considered an excess.

Consequently, according to the principle of clarity and precision of measurement units used in normative acts and technical documents, the limit value must be respected exactly, without rounding or implicit tolerances, unless these are expressly provided by law. Thus, the creditor's approach regarding 34 credit contracts, including those from Annex No. 6 of the Control Act, is absolutely unfounded.

2.3. At the same time, during the audience, the representative of OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL presented calculations regarding 11 credit contracts, which were included in Annex No. 6 of the Control Act. Taking into account the details presented by the creditor regarding the calculation of the commission, related to the provisions of the Civil Code, regarding contractual freedom, it should be noted that a recalculation of the data included in Annex No. 6 of the Control Act was performed.

In this case, the deficiencies concerned the method of calculating terms.

In law, in light of Art. 1763 para. (3) of the Civil Code, which provides that "(3) With respect to the credit contract, the provisions regarding the loan contract apply to the extent that the rules of this chapter do not provide otherwise or from the essence of the credit contract it does not appear contrary.", the provisions of Art. 1244 para. (5) of the same normative act become applicable, according to which "(5) The borrowed sum bears interest from the day it was handed over to the borrower."

Thus, by analogy of the law, in calculating terms, as well as costs reported in those terms, the cited norm above should have been applied.

Consequently, in order to establish the exact value of all costs per day, with the exception of interest, Annex No. 6 of the Control Act was revised.

Therefore, during the preliminary procedure, it was established that, regarding 10 credit contracts, the violation of the limit established at Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013 is not admitted.

2.3.1. At the same time, regarding Credit Contract No. […], it was established that the value of the monthly administration commission and the penalty does not exceed the limit established at Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013, being excluded from Annex No. 6 of the Control Act.

2.3.2. In this case, it should be noted that, regarding 2 credit contracts, the deficiencies in calculations are due to the presentation of erroneous information by OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL during the control.

Therefore, regarding Contract No. […], during the control, the creditor presented the control group aggregated data, in tabular form, related to all credit contracts, on 08.07.2025 and on 09.07.2025, where it was indicated that the credit disbursement date was 26.08.2022.

Subsequently, according to the Information on Credit Due Dates dated 12.08.2025, presented by the creditor's representative during the audience, it is established that the credit was disbursed on 22.08.2025, a fact that generated the recalculation of data in Annex No. 6 of the Control Act.

2.3.3. Similarly, with reference to Credit Contract No. […], during the control, the creditor presented the Information on Credit Due Dates dated 15.07.2025, specifying that a penalty of 24 lei was collected for one day of delay, which constituted a value superior to the legal limit of 0.04 percent of the credit value.

Moreover, the same date appeared in the information presented electronically to the control team.

Subsidiarily, according to the Information on Credit Due Dates dated 12.08.2025, presented by the creditor's representative during the audience, it is established that the penalty of 24 lei was collected for 2 days of delay.

2.3.4. With reference to Credit Contract No. […], it should be established that it was concluded on 05.09.2024, for a period of 6 months, the total value of the credit being the sum of 35,000 MDL. The contract contained a penalty clause valued at 0.02 percent of the total payable value, and a monthly administration commission valued at 0.5 percent of the total credit value.

In this case, according to Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013, the legal limit is 14 MDL, which represents the maximum value of payments related to the credit contract that the creditor can collect per day.

On the subject, according to the Information on Credit Due Dates dated 12.08.2025, it should be concluded that, for a period of 6 days of arrears, the creditor collected 84 MDL, which constitutes 14 MDL per day.

Also, it should be noted that the aforementioned contract also provides for a monthly administration commission, which was collected during the period of its actual use (209 days), in a total value of 1,050 MDL.

Therefore, calculated per day, the monthly administration commission was set at a value of 5.02 MDL.

Thus, the simultaneous collection of the daily administration commission (5.02 MDL) and the penalty (14 MDL) constitutes a violation of the limit of 0.04 percent of the total value of the credit, which is 14 MDL.

Therefore, regarding the respective contract, the finding regarding the violation of Art. 15 para. (7) lit. a) of Law No. 202/2013 is maintained.

3. With reference to the finding of violation of Art. 20 of Law No. 202/2013, it should be reiterated that the creditor was required to reduce the total cost of the credit by reducing all costs, proportionally to the period of credit use.

Thus, it should be established a non-uniform approach by the creditor, related to the respective institution, as, according to the Information on Credit Due Dates, in the case of early repayment, it reduced the value of the interest corresponding to the days by which the early repayment occurred earlier than the credit contract's due date.

In this context, the same approach should have been applied regarding the monthly administration commission, and the allegations regarding the fact that "the understanding would be that the recalculation should be performed for subsequent payments," are erroneous and lack legal basis.

Thus, the legal norm clearly indicates the object of recalculation – "interest and costs related to the period between the early repayment date and the date provided for the termination of the credit contract."

In this regard, it should be pointed out that the norm does not indicate the following due installments, according to the credit contract, but targets immediate effects, by reducing costs even from the day of early repayment, which OCN "GREEN CREDIT" SRL did not perform.

At the same time, the creditor claims that "none of the consumers indicated in Annex No. 6 have submitted an early repayment request to O.C.N. 'Green Credit' S.R.L.. … Therefore, the fact that O.C.N. 'Green Credit' S.R.L. closed the contracts mentioned in Annex No. 6 on its own, cannot be equated with an early repayment requested by the consumer.".

In this regard, it should be noted that the CNPF's control focused on the actual application of payments and the calculation of costs, regardless of whether the consumer formally requested early repayment or if the creditor closed the contract. The legal obligation to reduce costs arises from the act of early repayment itself, whether initiated by the consumer or resulting in the termination of the contract due to early settlement. The creditor's failure to apply the proportional reduction of costs (interest and other fees) for the period between the early repayment date and the original contract end date constitutes a violation of Art. 20 of Law No. 202/2013.

The CNPF maintains that the contractual clauses allowing for the full collection of the monthly administration commission even after early repayment, or the failure to adjust the total cost of credit, are contrary to the mandatory provisions of the law designed to protect consumers. The argument that the consumer did not explicitly request early repayment is irrelevant if the financial result was the early extinguishment of the debt, triggering the legal obligation for cost reduction.

Therefore, the Preliminary Application is rejected, and the Contested Decision No. 41/3/2025 is upheld, with the minor corrections regarding the 10 contracts identified in point 2.3 of this Decision.

President of the National Financial Market Commission [Signature]

Chișinău, 28 October 2025 No. 51/6