Decision on Preliminary Application No. 1820/2025 by TRANSELIT SA and Correction Application No. 1877/2025 regarding annulment of administrative acts

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION bd. Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt, nr. 77, mun. Chișinău, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md DECISION 18 November 2025 No. 55/2 Regarding Preliminary Application No. 1820/2025 dated 31.10.2025, submitted by IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA, subsequently clarified by Application No. 1877/2025 dated 13.11.2025 regarding the correction of errors in the preliminary application concerning the annulment of administrative acts dated 31.10.2025.

On 03.11.2025, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), Preliminary Application No. 1820/2025 dated 31.10.2025 (hereinafter the Preliminary Application), submitted by IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA (participant/insurer), was registered (under No. 7947), requesting the following: “1. Admission of the present Preliminary Application. 2. Suspension of the execution of CNPF Decision No. 49/3 of 15 October 2025 on the grounds indicated in the Preliminary Application. 3. Annulment as illegal of CNPF Decision No. 49/3 of 15 October 2025 on the grounds indicated in the Preliminary Application. 4. Annulment of CNPF Decision No. 49/3 of 15 October 2025, on the grounds indicated in the Preliminary Application.”.

In this matter, to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation that provides a genuine opportunity to analyze the insurer's claims, the insurer is hereby notified that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, as a preliminary step, is being conducted by distinguished officials within the CNPF.

In fact, on 15.07.2025, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 34/8 regarding the petition verbally formulated by Mr. [...], registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2254 on 24.03.2025, in relation to IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA (Decision No. 34/8/2025). Regarding this matter, according to point 3 of Decision No. 34/8/2025, the insurer was instructed to take corresponding actions to regularize the claims file related to the insured event that occurred on 04.02.2022, based on Travel Health Insurance Policy No. TRP [...] dated 28.01.2022 (insured – Mr. [...]), taking the necessary measures for the payment of insurance compensation in accordance with the special conditions of medical insurance for travel abroad. Furthermore, in accordance with point 4 of the same Decision, the insurer was required to inform the CNPF within 30 days from the date of notification about the execution of the aforementioned instructions.

Given the failure of IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA to submit the corresponding information within the established deadline, by letter No. 04-5/3816 dated 24.09.2025, the CNPF informed the insurer about the initiation of the administrative procedure and requested the submission of information regarding the execution of point 3 of the Decision, including an indication of the actions taken by the insurer. From the insurer's response dated 06.10.2025 (registered under No. 7287), it was established that the insurer failed to execute point 3 of Decision No. 34/8/2025 within the legal deadline established by the CNPF. Consequently, on 15.10.2025, the supervisory authority adopted Decision No. 49/3 regarding the summons for IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA to execute the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 34/8 of 15.07.2025 concerning the petition verbally formulated by Mr. [...], registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2254 on 24.03.2025, in relation to IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA (Decision No. 49/3/2025).

Under Decision No. 49/3/2025, the insurer was summoned to execute point 3 of Decision No. 34/8/2025 within 10 working days from the date of its notification. At the same time, IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA was warned that, in case of non-execution of point 3 of Decision No. 34/8/2025 within the deadline set by Decision No. 49/3/2025, the CNPF would apply a coercive fine in the amount of 80 conventional units, equivalent to 4,000 MDL.

Disagreeing with Decision No. 49/3/2025, the insurer submitted a Preliminary Application, requesting its annulment as well as the suspension of its execution. Subsidiarily, the request to suspend the execution of Decision No. 49/3/2025 (point 2 of the Preliminary Application) was rejected by CNPF Decision No. 53/2 dated 04.11.2025 regarding the request to suspend the execution of CNPF Decision No. 49/3 of 15.10.2025 concerning the summons for execution by IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA of CNPF Decision No. 34/8 of 15.07.2025 regarding the petition verbally formulated by Mr. [...], registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2254 on 24.03.2025, in relation to IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA.

Regarding the insurer's request to annul CNPF Decision No. 49/3 of 15 October 2025 on the grounds indicated in the Preliminary Application (points 3 and 4 of the Preliminary Application), it should be noted that the CNPF is examining, as a preliminary step, the arguments invoked by the participant, in strict compliance with the applicable legal provisions. In this context, it should be mentioned that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 94 of the Administrative Code, by CNPF letter No. 04-5/4423 dated 10.11.2025, the participant was informed of the right to be heard on 13.11.2025 at 09:00, concerning the facts and circumstances relevant to the act to be adopted, with a request to confirm participation or refusal to participate in the hearing by 12.11.2025 at 16:00. Subsequently, by message sent on 12.11.2025 from the email address office@transelit.md, the insurer confirmed, within the established deadline, the attendance of the Deputy General Director and the Head of the Legal and Compliance Department, who subsequently participated in the hearing on the stated date and time. During the hearing, the insurer's representatives, invoking a technical error, requested the modification of point 4 of the Preliminary Application with the following clarification: “4. Annulment of CNPF Decision No. 34/8 of 15 July 2025, on the grounds indicated in the Preliminary Application.”, fully supporting the position set forth in the Preliminary Application, which was recorded in the Hearing Record of the participant in the administrative procedure.

Subsequently, on 13.11.2025, the participant submitted Application No. 1877/2025 of the same date regarding the correction of errors in the Preliminary Application concerning the annulment of administrative acts dated 31 October 2025 (registered at the CNPF under No. 8253), reiterating the request made during the hearing to correct point 4 of the Preliminary Application as follows: “4. Annulment of Decision No. 34/8 of 15 July 2025 regarding the petition verbally formulated by Mr. [...] registered at the CNPF under No. 2254 on 24 March 2025 on the grounds invoked in the Preliminary Application.”.

Additionally, on 14.11.2025, the insurer submitted Application No. 1878/2025 dated 13.11.2025 regarding the restoration of the time limit (registered at the CNPF under No. 8289, hereinafter Application No. 1878/2025), invoking Article 65(1) of the Administrative Code, requesting the restoration of the time limit and examination of the grounds invoked in the Preliminary Application.

Through an analysis of the arguments set forth in the Preliminary Application, in light of the applicable legal provisions, it will be assessed whether they are capable of overturning the findings of the supervisory authority, as follows:

1. In law, Article 19 of the Administrative Code provides that “The Preliminary Application is the institution that offers a pre-litigation avenue for resolving administrative disputes.”, and Article 162(1) and (3) of the same law stipulate that “(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts. [...] (3) The Preliminary Application may be directed towards: a) annulment in whole or in part of an illegal or null individual administrative act; [...]”.
2. Under the conditions of Article 166 of the Administrative Code, “The Preliminary Application may be submitted only if the person claims rights violated by the issuance or refusal to issue an individual administrative act.”, and in accordance with Article 167(1) and (3) of the same law, “(1) If the public authority considers the preliminary application to be admissible and well-founded, it annuls in whole or in part the contested individual administrative act or issues the requested individual administrative act. [...] (3) The issuing public authority resolves the preliminary application within 15 calendar days. The provisions of Article 60(2)–(5) apply correspondingly.”.
3. Regarding the insurer's request to annul Decision No. 49/3/2025, it should be noted that the insurer invokes, as grounds for its annulment, the fact that “the action is time-barred, as the three-year limitation period provided by the Civil Code has expired”. Additionally, the participant argues that “the necessary payment was to take place in the period 05 February 2022 – 04 February 2025, therefore, the limitation period would have allowed Mr. [...] to demand payment of the debts no later than February 2025.”.
4. In this context, it should be specified that, by Decision No. 49/3/2025, the insurer was summoned to execute Decision No. 34/8/2025, which constitutes the principal individual administrative act, under which the insurer's unfulfilled obligation arose.
5. Consequently, Decision No. 49/3/2025 represents a subordinate individual administrative act, and its adoption is a consequence of the non-execution of the principal individual administrative act.
6. Furthermore, it is important to note that, prior to the submission of the Preliminary Application submitted for examination, Decision No. 34/8/2025 remained uncontested, given that the insurer did not submit a preliminary application within the legally established deadline to challenge its legality.
7. Accordingly, the insurer's allegations in the Preliminary Application are not pertinent to demonstrating the illegality of Decision No. 49/3/2025, since the invocation of the limitation period can only refer to Decision No. 34/8/2025. Moreover, in the administrative procedure that resulted in the adoption of Decision No. 34/8/2025, raising the plea of tardiness would have constituted an object of investigation by the supervisory authority, since that administrative act is the one that gave rise to the obligation attributed to the insurer.
8. As for the insurer's clarified request in point 4 of the Preliminary Application to annul Decision No. 34/8/2025, it should be noted that, according to Article 165(1) of the Administrative Code, “(1) The Preliminary Application must be submitted within 30 days from the notification or service of the individual administrative act or of the rejection of the petition. [...]”.
9. In this case, Decision No. 34/8/2025 was notified to the insurer on 18.07.2025 at the email address office@transelit.md, with receipt confirmed by the participant.
10. Given that, under Article 63 of the Administrative Code, the calculation of time limits is carried out in accordance with the provisions of Articles 383–390 of the Civil Code, it is established that the 30-day period provided for in Article 165(1) of the Administrative Code begins to run from 19.07.2025 (inclusive) and expires on 18.08.2025 (in the event that the last day, 17.08.2025, is a day off).
11. Therefore, given that the Preliminary Application was registered on 03.11.2025, it is established that the insurer exercised its right to challenge Decision No. 34/8/2025 in the preliminary procedure, exceeding the 30-day period, which is a period of forfeiture.
12. Correlatively, in the administrative litigation procedure, according to Article 207(2)(d) of the Administrative Code, an action submitted after the expiration of the period provided for in Article 209 of the same Code is declared inadmissible.
13. Accordingly, in the preliminary procedure, the submission of a preliminary application failing to respect the legally established time limit should be treated under similar conditions and bear the same legal consequences, namely rejection as inadmissible.
14. In this context, it should be noted that, although the participant submitted on 14.11.2025 Application No. 1878/2025, requesting restoration of the time limit, they did not provide pertinent arguments in support thereof, under Article 65 of the Administrative Code.
15. Moreover, according to Article 65(1) and (2) of the Administrative Code, “(1) If a person, for reasons independent of their will, could not comply with a legal time limit, then, upon request, they may be restored to the time limit. The fault of a legal representative or authorized agent is attributed to the represented party. (2) The request for restoration of the time limit must be submitted within 15 days from the removal of the impediment. The request must be accompanied by evidence confirming the facts on which it is based and, additionally, the omitted actions must be recovered.”.
16. Regarding this matter, the insurer, in support of the submitted request, invokes only a single ground, namely that “the limitation period, which was omitted by the CNPF when issuing Decision No. 34/8, was only recently examined, and in this case, the limitation period had expired, and the administrative act obliges the execution of a time-barred payment.”.
17. Accordingly, it is indisputable that this sole argument lacks relevance in supporting the omission of the legal time limit, and the request lacks any justification, as the participant was required not only to demonstrate the occurrence of circumstances beyond their control that prevented them from submitting a preliminary application within the deadline, but also to present evidence confirming the validity of the invoked grounds.
18. Therefore, Application No. 1878/2025 is subject to rejection.
19. Furthermore, given the insurer's reiterated exposition of the argument regarding the time-barred action, in virtue of the principles of transparency and comprehensibility, it is considered appropriate to present, for explanatory purposes, the following theses: 19.1. According to the provisions of Articles 391–408 of the Civil Code, extinctive prescription operates on the substantive right of action of the creditor (in this case, the insured) in private law relations, and its application occurs only upon the express request of the debtor (in this case, the insurer). 19.2. Moreover, Article 394 of the Civil Code explicitly indicates that an action regarding the defense of a violated right is rejected on the grounds of the expiration of the extinctive limitation period only if the person in whose favor the prescription ran, the creditor's creditors, or any other person with a legitimate interest has raised the plea of tardiness, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. 19.3. Thus, prescription affects only the substantive right of action, but not the existence of the obligation, and prescription does not annul or prevent voluntary execution or subsequent acknowledgment of the debt, but merely removes the possibility of forced execution thereof in a judicial procedure. 19.4. Within the administrative procedure for examining the petition formulated by Mr. [...], conducted by the CNPF, the insurer neither invoked extinctive prescription nor contested the exigibility of the obligation to pay the insurance compensation. 19.5. On the contrary, from the correspondence between the insured and the insurer and between the CNPF and the insurer, it emerges that the latter manifested agreement to regularize the claims file, a fact that can be treated as an express acknowledgment of the debt and which, under Article 401(1)(a) of the Civil Code, interrupts the running of the extinctive prescription. Subsequently, under paragraph (3) of the same article, a new extinctive prescription period begins to run, even if the circumstance occurs after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. 19.6. At the same time, in accordance with the powers granted by Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, by special norms in Law No. 407/2006 on Insurance and Law No. 92/2022 on Insurance or Reinsurance Activity, the CNPF's competence is limited to supervising compliance with legislation and proportional intervention, including in the process of execution of contractual obligations by insurers. 19.7. Accordingly, similar to a court of law, the CNPF was neither obliged nor competent to verify, ex officio, the limitation period of the insured's right to compensation at the time of examining the petition, nor does prescription apply automatically and must not be examined ex officio by the CNPF. 19.8. Among other things, the participant, in the Preliminary Application, refers to the ECtHR Decision dated 23.10.2025, pronounced in the case Cedron-G.I.S. SRL v. Republic of Moldova, as relevant to the case, under the conditions that it concerns the situation where national courts admitted a time-barred action, contrary to the principle of legal certainty. 19.9. Nevertheless, the Decision referred to indicates an error admitted by the court of law in assessing the moment from which the limitation period is calculated. Moreover, the person involved in this case invoked in court that the action was time-barred. 19.10. In this sense, in the event that the case examined within the preliminary procedure is distinct from the factual circumstances mentioned in the aforementioned ECtHR Decision, this reference is assessed as lacking pertinence, as the CNPF reiterates that the insurer did not invoke the expiration of the limitation period during the administrative procedure, concluded with the adoption of Decision No. 34/8/2025. 19.11. Consequently, the argument invoked by the insurer is unfounded and lacks relevance and pertinence in the context of the contested decisions – Decision No. 49/1/2025 and Decision No. 34/8/2025.
20. Accordingly, in the event that the insurer failed to justify the validity of the request to annul Decision No. 49/1/2025 and missed the legal deadline to challenge the legality of Decision No. 34/8/2025, the Preliminary Application should be rejected, as no violations of substantive or procedural norms have been identified.

Based on the above considerations, under Article 18(3), Article 20(1), (6) and (7) and Article 22(3) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, Articles 17, 19, 65(1) and (2), 162(1) and (3)(a), 165(1), 166, 167(3), 169(2) and (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:

1. Application No. 1878/2025 dated 13.11.2025 regarding restoration of the time limit, submitted by IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA (registered at the CNPF under No. 8289), is rejected.
2. Preliminary Application No. 1820/2025 dated 31.10.2025, submitted by IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA (registered at the CNPF under No. 7947 on 03.11.2025), subsequently clarified by Application No. 1877/2025 dated 13.11.2025 regarding the correction of errors in the preliminary application concerning the annulment of administrative acts dated 31 October 2025 (registered at the CNPF under No. 8253), is rejected as unfounded, insofar as it requests the annulment of CNPF Decision No. 49/3 dated 15.10.2025 concerning the summons for execution by IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA of CNPF Decision No. 34/8 of 15.07.2025 regarding the petition verbally formulated by Mr. [...], registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2254 on 24.03.2025, in relation to IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA.
3. Preliminary Application No. 1820/2025 dated 31.10.2025, submitted by IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA (registered at the CNPF under No. 7947 on 03.11.2025), subsequently clarified by Application No. 1877/2025 dated 13.11.2025 regarding the correction of errors in the preliminary application concerning the annulment of administrative acts dated 31 October 2025 (registered at the CNPF under No. 8253), is rejected as inadmissible, insofar as it requests the annulment of CNPF Decision No. 34/8 regarding the petition verbally formulated by Mr. [...], registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2254 on 24.03.2025, in relation to IM CIA „TRANSELIT” SA.
4. This Decision may be challenged by an administrative litigation action submitted to the Chișinău Court, Râșcani branch (MD-2068, Chișinău, Kiev 3 St.), within 30 days from the date of its notification.
5. This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption, is notified to the recipient in accordance with legislation, and is published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI, CHAIRMAN