Decision No. 52/37 of the National Financial Commission regarding the request to suspend the enforcement of Decision No. 44/2 concerning Extra Credit SRL

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL FINANCIAL 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 6, 2026 No. 52/37 Regarding the request for suspension of enforcement of Decision No. 44/2 of the National Financial Commission dated September 1, 2026, regarding the petition of Ms. [...], registered with the National Financial Commission under No. 4594 on June 8, 2026, in relation to OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL

On September 29, 2026, within the National Financial Commission (NFC), the Preliminary Request "against Decision No. 44/2 of the National Financial Commission dated September 1, 2026, regarding the petition registered under No. 4594 on June 8, 2026, in relation to OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL" (Preliminary Request) was registered (under No. 8848).

According to the Preliminary Request, OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL (creditor) requested, among other things, "Suspension of the enforcement of NFC Decision No. 44/2 dated September 1, 2026, on the basis of Art. 172 para. (1), para. (2) lit. a) and b) and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, until the completion of the preliminary procedure, including the filing of the action provided for in point 3 and the publication provided for in point 6 of the Decision, with withdrawal of the publication, if it took place, the suspension request being to be resolved within 5 working days from registration, the Decision not being enforceable until its resolution, according to Art. 171 para. (4) of the same code."

In this case, it should be noted that, in order to ensure a full, objective, and transparent investigation that offers the real possibility of analyzing the participant's claim, the participant is informed that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in the preliminary order, is carried out by distinct executors within the NFC.

In fact, on May 28, 2026, within the NFC, the petition of Ms. [...] (debtor), with the documents attached to it, submitted by her representative, Mr. [...], was registered (under No. 4190), in which the intervention of the NFC was requested regarding the legal relationship established on the basis of Non-bank Credit Contract No. [...] dated August 12, 2021, between the debtor and OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL.

Following the investigations carried out in the context of the respective administrative procedure, the analysis of the materials/evidence presented by the participants in the procedure, in light of the applicable regulatory framework for contractual relationships, the NFC adopted Decision No. 44/2 dated September 1, 2026, regarding the petition of Ms. [...], registered with the National Financial Commission under No. 4594 on June 8, 2026, in relation to OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL (Decision No. 44/2/2026/Contested Decision), according to which the NFC decided:

"1. It is established that OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL violated the provisions of Art. 3, Art. 10 para. (3) lit. i), lit. p), lit. s), lit. t) and lit. u), Art. 13 lit. b) and lit. c), Art. 14 para. (1) and Art. 20 para. (2) of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts and of Art. 943 para. (1) of the Civil Code.
2. It is established that the clauses in the Non-bank Credit Contract No. [...] dated August 12, 2021, contained in:
2.1. Art. 2.7 point 5, in the part providing that: "The account currency of the credit and the interest due is euro (EUR). The payment currency (of execution) is the Moldovan leu (MDL). If on the date of payment of a part of the credit and/or interest the exchange rate (according to NBM) of the payment currency against the account currency increases. The Debtor will make the payment according to the exchange rate existing on the date of execution, otherwise the payment will be made according to the MDL/EUR exchange rate on the date the credit was granted. That is, to calculate the amount due for payment of the credit rate and interest in MDL, the equivalent of the amount to be paid in EUR (calculated according to the exchange rate on the day the credit was granted) will be multiplied by the maximum rate between the MDL/EUR exchange rate on the date the credit was granted and the MDL/EUR exchange rate on the date of payment.".
2.2. Art. 2.9 point 1 and point 2, according to which "1. Taxes, fees, commissions, honoraria, as well as other payments related to the conclusion, registration and execution of this Contract, of documents regarding guarantees fall on the Debtor. 2. The Debtor will cover unforeseen expenses resulting from this Contract, which include the Creditor's additional expenses arising from the granting and servicing of the credit, generated by the introduction of modifications in normative or administrative acts, or their interpretation by any public body, which after the date of signing this Contract impose certain conditions on the Creditor regarding the granting and servicing of the Credit.";
2.3. Art. 3.3, according to which the debtor "a) will not contract (receive) other credits from individuals and/or legal entities without the prior written consent of the Creditor"; "b) will not give preference to other debts and obligations different from the debt according to this Contract"; "c) will not alienate property from ownership without prior written notification [...] to the Creditor";
2.4. Art. 3.5 lit. a), which establishes that the debtor is not entitled "to assume financial obligations (credits, loans, guarantees, sureties, contractual debts, etc.) without the written consent of the Creditor".".

Not agreeing with the NFC's findings, the insurer filed the Preliminary Request, requesting the annulment of the contested Decision, as well as the suspension of its enforcement.

Regarding the request for suspension of enforcement of the contested Decision, it should be noted that, in accordance with Art. 172 para. (1) and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, "(1) If an unfavorable individual administrative act is contested with a preliminary request, the public authority, ex officio or at the request of the affected person, may suspend its enforcement until the completion of the preliminary procedure. [...] (3) The suspension of enforcement of an unfavorable individual administrative act is decided by the public authority competent to resolve the preliminary request. The decision on the suspension of enforcement is taken within 5 working days from the moment of registration, unless the law provides otherwise."

In conditions where the object of the Preliminary Request constitutes the annulment and suspension of a decision adopted by the NFC, whose activity is regulated by Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Commission (Law No. 192/1998/framework law), the provisions of the framework law become applicable, which contain special norms regarding the grounds and conditions for suspension of enforcement of an individual administrative act of the NFC.

Moreover, this approach is also founded on the basis of legal norms contained in Art. 2 para. (2) of the Administrative Code and Art. 5 para. (3) of Law No. 100/2017 on normative acts, which explicitly determine that "Certain aspects concerning administrative activity regarding specific areas of activity may be regulated by special legislative norms derogating from the provisions of this code only if this regulation is absolutely necessary and does not contradict the principles of this code." and "[...] Special legal norms are exclusively applicable to certain categories of social relations or strictly determined subjects. In case of divergence between a general norm and a special norm, which are contained in normative acts of the same level, the special norm is applied."

In this sense, a priori, it should be noted that Art. 23 para. (1 2) of Law No. 192/1998, by way of exception, establishes that, "(1 2) By derogation from Art. 171 para. (4) of Administrative Code No. 116/2018, filing a request for suspension of enforcement of an act of the National Commission does not automatically suspend the effects of the contested act until the resolution of the suspension request.", which counters the creditor's allegations regarding the incidence of Art. 171 para. (4) of the Administrative Code.

Subsequently, according to the imperative provisions of Art. 23 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998, "(3) The suspension of enforcement of the Commission's acts, other than those provided for in para. (1 1), may be ordered by the National Commission, at the request of the recipient of the individual administrative act or of a third party whose rights are affected by the individual administrative act, filed within the preliminary procedure, or by the court only at the request of the plaintiff, filed simultaneously with the filing of the action, and only in the case where the following conditions are cumulatively met: a) the reasons invoked by the plaintiff in support of the action are relevant and well-founded and there is a prima facie case against the legality of the contested act; b) the plaintiff presents arguments with a factual basis that the circumstances of the dispute require the urgent ordering of the suspension of enforcement of the contested administrative act to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the plaintiff's interests; c) the damage that could be caused to the plaintiff exceeds the public interest pursued by issuing the contested administrative act."

In this sense, the NFC holds that the suspension of enforcement of the contested administrative act constitutes an exceptional measure, of a temporary and preventive nature, expressly provided by law, which may be ordered only in situations where the conditions established in Art. 23 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 are cumulatively met.

In this context, it should be noted that, although Art. 23 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 uses the term "plaintiff" in the part of the exposition of conditions that must be met to order suspension, this norm explicitly establishes, in the introductory thesis, the application of the norm also by the NFC, at the request of the recipient of the individual administrative act, filed within the preliminary procedure.

Therefore, in examining the suspension request formulated by OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL, the NFC must verify the cumulative fulfillment of the conditions provided in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. a) – c) of the framework law.

Having analyzed the arguments formulated by the participant, in support of the request for suspension of enforcement of the contested Decision, the supervisory authority finds that the cumulative conditions provided by Art. 23 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 are not met, for the following reasons:

With reference to the condition indicated in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. a) of Law No. 192/1998, according to which "a) the reasons invoked by the plaintiff in support of the action are relevant and well-founded and there is a prima facie case against the legality of the contested act", it should be noted that its examination at the stage of resolving the suspension request does not presuppose an exhaustive verification of the legality of the contested Decision.

Thus, the existence of a prima facie case against the legality of the contested Decision must be assessed in relation to those factual and legal circumstances that, being clear and evident, are capable of generating serious and reasonable doubt regarding the legality of the act, without it being necessary to carry out an in-depth analysis of the substance of the legal relationship.

This approach also results from the jurisprudence of the Centru Court of Appeal (CAC Decision dated October 2, 2025, Case No. 2-25060846-02-3r-21072025), which held that, at the stage of examining the suspension request, an evaluation on the merits of the arguments regarding the state of facts is not required, in situations where such an evaluation would presuppose a detailed appreciation of the legality of the administrative act, especially when the legal relationship is complex and presupposes the correlated interpretation of several norms and the full clarification of factual circumstances. At the same time, the court held that the administrative act enjoys the presumption of legality and produces immediate legal effects, and the existence of a prima facie case cannot be deduced from the applicant's simple statements.

Therefore, the fact that OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL formulated, in the Preliminary Request, a series of criticisms regarding the legality of Decision No. 44/2/2026 is not sufficient, by itself, to demonstrate the fulfillment of the condition provided in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. a) of Law No. 192/1998, as those must be subject to examination at the stage of the merits. Therefore, the circumstance that the arguments invoked above are susceptible of constituting the object of analysis during the resolution of the preliminary request does not mean that they demonstrate, at the stage of examining the suspension, the existence of obvious illegality or of a serious and reasonable doubt regarding the legality of the act.

To meet this condition, the reasons invoked by the participant must present, upon preliminary examination, a sufficient degree of relevance and thoroughness, such that they indicate, in a real manner, the improbability of the contested Decision.

Moreover, aspects whose establishment requires the administration and appreciation of evidence, verification of factual circumstances, or a legal analysis proper to the examination of the merits cannot be automatically valued as proof of a prima facie case.

Otherwise, the legal condition regarding the existence of a prima facie case would lack autonomy and would be reduced to the simple existence of a challenge against the administrative act, whereas the legislator did not condition the suspension of enforcement on the simple fact of contesting the act, but on the existence of relevant and well-founded reasons that outline, even at a preliminary level, a real appearance of illegality.

Therefore, the creditor's allegations regarding "lack of motivation" and "unclear findings" cannot constitute a prima facie element denoting the illegality of the contested Decision, as these must be rebutted during the analysis of the merits of the Preliminary Request.

With reference to the condition provided in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. b) of Law No. 192/1998, according to which "the plaintiff presents arguments with a factual basis that the circumstances of the dispute require the urgent ordering of the suspension of enforcement of the contested administrative act to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the plaintiff's interests", it is attested the need to identify a grave and irreparable prejudice to prove the fulfillment of this condition.

In this sense, it should be noted that demonstrating the existence of patrimonial or operational consequences as a result of the enforcement of the administrative act is not sufficient. The participant must demonstrate, in a concrete and verifiable manner, the grave, imminent, and irreparable nature of the prejudice, as well as the direct link between its occurrence and the enforcement of the administrative act.

The same interpretation results from the jurisprudence of the Centru Court of Appeal, mentioned above, according to which the invoked prejudice must be founded on concrete, current, and verifiable circumstances, and the mere possibility of future consequences is not sufficient. Furthermore, the court emphasized the need to demonstrate the direct link between the enforcement of the act and the invoked prejudice, as well as the impossibility or real difficulty of repairing it.

On this aspect, it should be noted that, with regard to the condition of the existence of a grave and irreparable prejudice to the creditor's rights by the contested Decision, the creditor declaratively invokes only circumstances that "may produce irreversible patrimonial consequences", without relating them to the situation in the case or to a real prejudice. In this sense, the legal provision cited above establishes that the circumstances invoked in support of the request regarding the suspension of the contested Decision must be certain and real, but not hypothetical and future. This argument is not sufficient for the fulfillment of the condition provided in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. b) of the framework law.

To constitute grounds for suspension, the creditor had to demonstrate not only the value of the prejudice referred to, but also that the contested Decision causes an infringement that cannot be removed by subsequent legal or patrimonial means.

Moreover, in the absence of arguments supporting the patrimonial nature of the effects of the contested Decision, the suspension request cannot demonstrate the impossibility of restoring the previous situation in the event that the contested Decision is subsequently annulled.

At the same time, the reputational risk invoked by the creditor is formulated in general terms. In this sense, it should be noted that the mere invocation of possible reputational damage does not demonstrate the existence of a certain, grave, and irreparable prejudice.

To retain this circumstance, the creditor had to present objective and quantifiable elements that would allow the establishment of both the concrete nature of the prejudice, as well as its intensity and irreversibility.

With reference to the condition provided in Art. 23 para. (3) lit. c) of Law No. 192/1998, in accordance with which "the damage that could be caused to the plaintiff exceeds the public interest pursued by issuing the contested administrative act", it should be noted that this presupposes a comparative assessment of the private interest and the public interest pursued by adopting the contested Decision. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the enforcement of the contested Decision to produce certain unfavorable consequences for the participant, but it is necessary that the prejudice thus produced be of such intensity that it prevails over the public interest, protected by this administrative act.

In this case, the Centru Court of Appeal held, in the aforementioned decision, that the simple dissatisfaction of the recipient of the administrative act or the economic inconveniences inherent in its enforcement are not sufficient to demonstrate the exceeding of the public interest. To prevail over it, the negative consequences must be demonstrated by objective and quantifiable data, from which the certain and significant nature of these results.

Based on the above and taking into account that the creditor, requesting the ordering of the suspension of enforcement of the contested Decision, did not indicate any reason for suspension, on the basis of which the NFC could conclude that not taking the security measure would have the impact foreseen by the specified legal norms, it should be noted that the existence of the conditions established by law is not presumed, but must be proven by the person who requested the suspension of enforcement of the individual administrative act.

Furthermore, it should be recorded that the creditor does not distinguish between the grounds for suspending the decision, as a security measure for the action, and the grounds for supporting the merits of the case, whereas the purpose pursued by these is absolutely distinct, and consequently, their motivation must differ, while the creditor invokes the same arguments in support of both requests.

This conclusion results from the fact that the creditor invokes circumstances in support of the alleged illegality of the contested Decision (points 9 – 13 of the Preliminary Request), on the basis of Art. 172 para. (2) of the Administrative Code, indicating declaratively that "both reasons are met".

In fact, the proper illegality of the individual administrative act is, in fact, examined within the control of the legality of the administrative act, which represents one of the elements of the merits of the Preliminary Request.

Thus, the creditor, in the motivation for the suspension of enforcement of Decision No. 44/2/2026, did not present arguments that would be of a nature to overturn this state of affairs and that could be placed on the basis of a possible decision to suspend the enforcement of the contested administrative act.

In this sense, the indication of Art. 172 of the Administrative Code does not constitute, per se, grounds for the suspension of the individual administrative act, inasmuch as that norm only institutionalizes the operation of suspension and indicates the circumstances in which it may be ordered.

In this context, it should be highlighted that, in conditions of Art. 23 para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998, the burden of proof of the existence of relevant and well-founded reasons, as well as the existence of the imminence of harm to the interests and rights of the participant is placed on the latter, in this case, these are completely lacking.

Consequently, the arguments supporting the suspension of enforcement of the administrative act need to be of an evident and uncontested nature, which would not imply a direct examination of the merits of the Preliminary Request.

Correlatively, in the absence of argumentation supporting the suspension request, it should be noted that it does not fall under the suspension conditions provided by the Administrative Code in this regard.

Based on the factual and legal reasons stated, the request for suspension of enforcement of Decision No. 44/2/2026 must be rejected.

From the reasons exposed above, on the basis of Art. 18 para. (3), Art. 20 para. (1) and para. (6), Art. 22 para. (3), Art. 23 para. (3) and para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Commission, the Administrative Code, and the Regulation on the organization and functioning of the National Financial Commission (NFC Decision No. 57/11/2022),

The National Financial Commission DECIDES:

1. The request for suspension of enforcement of Decision No. 44/2 of the National Financial Commission dated September 1, 2026, regarding the petition of Ms. [...], registered with the National Financial Commission under No. 4594 on June 8, 2026, in relation to OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL, formulated by OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL through the Preliminary Request, registered with the NFC under No. 8848 on September 29, 2026, is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested with an administrative litigation action, filed with the Chisinau Court, Rascani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev 3 St.), together with the individual administrative act, adopted at the completion of the preliminary procedure.

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 NFC (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI,
PRESIDENT