Decision on the Preliminary Application Submitted by IM CA GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI SA Regarding the Contestation of CNPF Decision No. 47/5

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 11 November 2025 No. 54/1 Regarding the Preliminary Application submitted by IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA, contesting Decision No. 47/5 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 01.10.2025 regarding the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 5157 on 02.07.2025, in relation to IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA

On 13.10.2025, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Application No. 4154 dated 10.10.2025 (Preliminary Application) was registered (under No. 7446), submitted by IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA (insurer), primarily requesting the "Total annulment of Decision No. 47/5 dated 01.10.2025".

In this case, it should be noted that on 02.07.2025, within the CNPF, the petition of Ms. [...], with attached documents, was registered (under No. 5157), requesting CNPF intervention regarding the actions of IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA related to the regularization of Damage File No. [...], opened following the road accident on 26.05.2025, involving the SKODA KAMIQ vehicle, reg. No. [...], and the TOYOTA vehicle, reg. No. [...] (Damage File).

Following investigations conducted in the context of the respective administrative procedure, analysis of materials/evidence presented by procedure participants, within the framework of the normative regime applicable to contractual relations, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 47/5 dated 01.10.2025 regarding the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 5157 on 02.07.2025, in relation to IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA (Decision No. 47/5/2025/Contested Decision), by which it was decided:

"1. The application submitted by IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA on 01.10.2025, registered with CNPF under No. 7194, is rejected.
2. It is established that IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA violated the provisions of Art. 89 para. (1) lit. b) and lit. e) of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance or reinsurance activity.
3. IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA is ordered to regularize damage file No. [...], in accordance with Art. 1870 para. (1) of the Civil Code, within 20 days from the date of communication of this Decision.
4. IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA is ordered to apply Art. 1870 para. (1) of the Civil Code in the process of regularizing damage files related to ongoing property insurance contracts, to the extent that they contain elements of non-conformity similar to those established by this Decision.
5. IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA is ordered to apply Art. 1870 of the Civil Code in conformity when concluding property insurance contracts.
6. IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA shall inform the CNPF about the actions taken to execute the prescriptions indicated in points 3 – 5 within 30 days from the date of communication of this Decision."

Disagreeing with the CNPF's findings, the insurer submitted the Preliminary Application, primarily requesting the annulment of the contested Decision.

A priori, in accordance with Art. 20 of the Administrative Code, "If an administrative activity infringes a legitimate right or 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 an administrative activity causes harm.".

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) total or partial annulment of an illegal or null individual administrative act; b) 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 rejection of issuance of an individual administrative act.".

By analyzing the arguments exposed in the Preliminary Application, within the framework 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:

1. Regarding the competence of the supervisory authority, essentially, the insurer invokes that the CNPF does not have competence to issue such decisions, declaring that the authority's competencies are limited to those provided by Art. 37 para. (2) of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection (Law No. 105/2003).

Thus, IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA explains that the CNPF is the body authorized with control functions regarding the establishment and evaluation of the abusive nature of contractual clauses, exercising its duties only within the limits provided by Arts. 1069 – 1072, 1075 – 1079, and Art. 1081 of the Civil Code, regarding contracts concluded with consumers.

Such an interpretation is, however, erroneous and restrictive, as it ignores special regulations applicable to the insurance sector.

Generally, the legislator attributed to the CNPF the competence of authority in the field of consumer protection, under Art. 36 para. (2) of Law No. 205/2003.

Specifically, the legislator established in Art. 89 para. (1) lit. b) and lit. e) of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance and/or reinsurance activity that, "(1) For consumer protection and to ensure the quality of insurance or reinsurance services, the insurance or reinsurance company is obliged: b) to act honestly and respect the rights and interests of policyholders, insured persons, reinsured persons, insurance beneficiaries, and injured third parties, deriving from insurance and/or reinsurance contracts; e) to pay all insurance compensation and/or benefits within the timeframes established by law or contract." and, in accordance with para. (3) lit. h) of the same article, "the CNPF is the public authority that coordinates, at the national level, the control of compliance with legislation regarding consumer protection in the insurance sector, having duties to adopt decisions mandatory for execution, applicable to professional participants on the insurance market or the national bureau.".

In the same sense, Art. 89 para. (4) of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance activity (Law No. 92/2022) provides that "(4) In the activity of processing and resolving petitions, the National Financial Market Commission ensures compliance with legislation in the insurance sector, as well as contractual conditions by the professional participant on the insurance market, according to its duties.".

From the correlation of these legal provisions, it results unequivocally that the CNPF has explicit legal competence to adopt decisions mandatory for execution, to ensure compliance with legal and contractual provisions by professional participants on the insurance market.

Thus, the exercise of the CNPF's competencies is not limited to establishing abusive clauses, but also, in certain cases, includes the adoption of administrative measures — including decisions with mandatory character, intended to ensure the honest behavior of insurers and the respect of consumer rights, in accordance with Art. 89 of Law No. 92/2022.

Consequently, the petitioner's claims regarding the lack of competence of the supervisory authority are unfounded, as the CNPF's duties derive not only from the Civil Code or Law No. 105/2003, but also from the special law of the insurance sector, which grants the CNPF the legal prerogative to issue executive decisions, to ensure compliance with the normative framework and protect the legitimate interests of consumers.

2. Regarding the merits of the case, it was established during the administrative procedure that the Land Vehicle Insurance Contract (AUTOCASCO), series/No. [...] (Insurance Contract), concluded between IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA and Ms. [...], on 12.07.2024, with an insured sum of 21,420 EUR, has as its object the insurance of the SKODA KAMIQ vehicle.

During the contractual period, two insured events occurred: the first insured case (file No. [...]), with compensation in the amount of 131,416 MDL, paid to the authorized dealer, "DAAC-Hermes" SA, and the second case (file No. [...]), for which the damage assessment constituted the sum of 82,993 MDL, but the insurer paid only 56,601.23 MDL. To justify the reduction of the compensation amount, the insurer referred to the clause at point 6.12 of the Insurance Contract and point 13.12 of the General Conditions for Land Vehicle Insurance – Class 3 (Insurance Conditions), according to which, "In the case of partial damages, if the Insured or Beneficiary has received insurance compensation (one or more) exceeding 25% of the initial insured sum and has not replenished this sum, then the sum of subsequent compensations will be calculated proportionally to the ratio between the remaining insured sum and the initial insured sum.".

According to Art. 87 para. (1) of Law No. 92/2022 and by virtue of the principle of contractual freedom, provided by Art. 993 para. (2) of the Civil Code, contracting parties may freely conclude contracts and establish their content, or, this freedom is exercised within the limits of mandatory legal provisions.

In this context, Art. 1868 and Art. 1870 para. (1) of the Civil Code provide the general rule, according to which "The insurer is obliged to compensate the entire insured damage within the limit of the insured sum, even if the insured sum is smaller than the value of the insured asset at the moment the insured event occurs.".

The cited norm represents a mandatory provision and constitutes a guarantee in favor of the insured, who is attributed the right to collect the entire insured damage (within the limit of the insured sum), and a correlative obligation of the insurer in this regard is also established.

In this case, the insurer's allegations that Art. 1870 of the Civil Code regulates only the situation of underinsurance (insured sum is smaller than the value of the insured asset) cannot be upheld.

Per contra, it should be explained that the cited legal norm operates with the phrase "even if the insured sum is smaller than the value of the insured asset".

Moreover, it is observed that when the insurer is obliged to compensate the entire damage, the legal text makes no distinction regarding the situation where the insured sum would be inferior or equal to the value of the asset, the insurance compensation being limited only by the insured sum at the moment the insured event occurs.

This interpretation is supported by the legal interpretation principle "Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus" – where the law does not distinguish, the interpreter should not distinguish either.

Consequently, the insurer's argument, exposed in the Preliminary Application, according to which the norm would apply exclusively to cases of underinsurance, is legally unfounded.

Therefore, the application of Art. 1870 para. (1) of the Civil Code is not conditioned by the existence of a formal or declared underinsurance in the contract, but operates whenever the insured event occurs, and the insured sum is equal to or smaller than the value of the asset, regardless of the intention or contractual strategy of the parties.

At the same time, it is necessary to explain that similar previous provisions, provided in Art. 15 para. (7) of Law No. 407/2006 (repealed by Law No. 92/2022), according to which, "In the case where an insurance contract has been concluded for an insured sum inferior to the value of the asset subject to insurance, the due compensation is reduced proportionally to the ratio between the sum provided in the contract and the value of the asset if otherwise agreed in the contract.", were repealed, as a result of the entry into force of Law No. 133/2018 on the modernization of the Civil Code. The current regime is regulated exclusively by Art. 1870 of the Civil Code, which introduced a different normative approach: the rule is full compensation within the limit of the insured sum, and proportional compensation is permitted only in the case of meeting the cumulative conditions established in Art. 1870 para. (2) and para. (3) of the Civil Code, as follows:

1) the parties expressly agreed on this clause;
2) the explicit method of calculating proportionality and the elements of the calculation formula;
3) the additional mention of this clause in the text of the insurance policy.

Thus, unlike the old legal framework, which provided for the application of the principle of proportionality only in relation to insurance contracts for an insured sum inferior to the value of the asset subject to insurance, the new legal regime extends the applicability of the proportional compensation clause, related to any stage of the property insurance contract, regardless of the insured sum. At the same time, it imposes additional substantive and formal conditions, including the need for explicit mention of the clause in the text of the insurance policy, intended to protect the insured, consolidate contractual transparency, and ensure the predictability of obligations assumed by the insurer.

Additionally, based on the cited legal norm, the situation regulated by Art. 1870 para. (1) of the Civil Code constitutes the general rule, which applies de jure in relation to all property insurance contracts – payment of compensation within the limit of the insured sum. This provision does not require a distinct clause in the text of the Insurance Contract, as it operates on the basis of the mandatory norm in the Civil Code.

At the same time, para. (2) of the same article represents a supplementary norm, establishing that the parties may derogate from the general rule.

Moreover, the legislator determined the exhaustive conditions under which the parties may derogate from the principle of paying compensation, within the limit of the insured sum.

Thus, the reduction of insurance compensation can be made only "proportionally to the ratio between the insured sum and the actual value of the asset at the moment the damage occurred" and only if that clause was mentioned in the text of the insurance policy.

Subsequently, the insurer, exercising its right provided by Art. 1870 para. (2) of the Civil Code to propose a proportional compensation clause, concluded the Insurance Contract with the clause contained in point 6.12. This clause explicitly regulates a limitation of the insurer's obligation to compensate future damages in full, but within the limit of the insured sum, respectively, introducing a proportional rule for calculating subsequent compensations, based on the remaining insured sum.

On the subject, it should be noted that establishing in the insurance contract a conventional triggering factor, such as the threshold of 25 percent of the initial insured sum, for the activation of the proportional compensation clause, is not, in itself, contrary to the Civil Code.

Thus, point 6.12 of the Insurance Contract establishes the compensation obligation, in a manner similar to the regime provided by Art. 1870 para. (2) of the Civil Code, based on the proportion of indices with the same values.

Furthermore, both the clause at point 6.12 of the Insurance Contract and the provision cited from the Civil Code regulate the same legal situation: calculating compensation in relation to the insured sum.

Consequently, the provisions of Art. 1870 of the Civil Code apply directly to this clause, which, to be opposable by the insurer, must respect the validity condition provided in para. (3), namely to be expressly included in the text of the insurance policy.

In this case, although the clause contained in point 6.12 of the Insurance Contract appears in the General Conditions and in the framework contract, it was not mentioned in the insurance policy issued to the insured. The application of such a clause, without respecting the mandatory formal requirement provided by law, constitutes a violation of the provisions of Art. 1870 para. (3) of the Civil Code and contradicts the principles of transparency, good faith, and consumer protection provided by Art. 89 para. (1) lit. b) of Law No. 92/2022.

Moreover, given that the proportionality clause did not respect the exhaustive conditions established by the legislator in Art. 1870 para. (3) of the Civil Code, by not including it in the text of the insurance policy, the provisions of Art. 1870 para. (1) of the Civil Code become applicable, implicitly the general rule, which indicates the calculation of insurance compensation, without proportional reduction.

In this way, the insurer did not fulfill its legal and contractual obligation to pay insurance compensation in accordance with the applicable regime, resorting to the payment of a compensation in the amount of 56,601.23 MDL, instead of the full established sum, valued at 82,993.00 MDL, which represents inadequate execution of the compensation obligation.

Concurrently, the non-payment of the full compensation (in this case, the sum of 82,993.00 MDL), based on a contractual clause that does not meet the formal and transparency requirements, contradicts good faith and respect for the insured's interests, who has the right to protection conferred by the insurance policy and the law.

Thus, it is a lack of honesty and contractual loyalty, being a violation by the insurer of the provisions of Art. 89 para. (1) lit. b) and lit. e) of Law No. 92/2022.

In this case, it should be noted that Decision No. 47/5/2025 does not concern the amount of insurance compensation, as erroneously indicated by the insurer.

In this context, the contested Decision established that the proportionality clause at point 6.12 of the Insurance Contract does not correspond to the mandatory rigor established by the legislator, annulling, in this regard, its effects.

Complementarily, the supervisory authority established that, under such conditions, the insurer must regularize the damage file, in accordance with Art. 1870 para. (1) of the Civil Code, regardless of what the full compensation amount is in this case.

3. Regarding the right to be heard, in the Preliminary Application it is invoked that the CNPF "violated the right to hearing and did not provide the insurer with a reasonable period for information and preparation of the participant".

In this context, the CNPF considers the respective statement to be declaratory, as, during the administrative procedure, the insurer was requested to present opinions, explanations, and clarifications related to the merits of the case (as mentioned in points 2 – 10 of the reasoning part of the contested Decision).

Therefore, the insurer was ensured the right to defense, to collaboration, to efficiency, comprehensibility, and transparency of the administrative procedure concerning it.

In law, according to Art. 94 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, "(1) Before issuing an individual administrative act unfavorable to a participant or before rejecting a favorable individual administrative act, the participant has the right to be heard regarding the facts and circumstances relevant to the act to be issued.".

Additionally, it should be noted that in accordance with Art. 123 para. (1) lit. c) and para. (2) of the same normative act, "(1) A violation of formal and procedural provisions, which does not lead to the nullity of the individual administrative act, is insignificant when: c) the necessary hearing of a participant is done subsequently; (2) The actions provided in para. (1) can be recovered until the completion of judicial debates in the first instance.".

In the context of the cited norms above, it should be specified that, on 31.10.2025, at 10:00, within the premises of the CNPF, the hearing procedure of the participant in the preliminary procedure took place. In this context, the representative of the insurer, Mr. [...], supported the arguments invoked in the Preliminary Application, which was recorded in the Hearing Record of the participant in the preliminary procedure.

Thus, given that the insurer was heard subsequently, during the preliminary procedure, any alleged deficiency related to the legality of the contested Decision is considered remedied.

4. Regarding the preliminary procedure, it should be noted that, according to the Disposition of the President of the CNPF No. 1111 dated 23.10.2025 regarding the extension of the general term of the preliminary procedure, initiated by the Preliminary Application submitted by IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA, contesting Decision No. 47/5 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 01.10.2025 regarding the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 5157 on 02.07.2025, in relation to IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA, the general term of the preliminary procedure was extended until 12.11.2025.

Also, the aforementioned Disposition was brought to the knowledge of the creditor by CNPF letter No. 06-5/4258 dated 24.10.2025, sent to the email address office@grawe.md.

Additionally, by the same letter, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 94 of the Administrative Code, IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA was informed about the exercise of the right to be heard, regarding circumstances relevant to the act to be adopted, as well as about the fact that the hearing is to take place with physical presence, on 31.10.2025, at 10:00, Chisinau, 77 Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd.

Consequently, the insurer, by the letter registered at CNPF under No. 7912 on 30.10.2025, confirmed presence in the hearing procedure.

During the hearing procedure, the representative of the insurer supported the arguments invoked in the Preliminary Application, which was recorded in the Hearing Record of the participant in the preliminary procedure.

From the considerations recorded above, on the basis of Art. 18 para. (3), Art. 20 para. (1), para. (6), and para. (7), and Art. 22 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection, Art. 164 para. (1) and para. (2) lit. b), Art. 167 para. (1) and para. (3), Art. 169 para. (2) and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, points 16 and 19 of 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. The Preliminary Application No. 4154 dated 10.10.2025 (registered at CNPF under No. 7446 on 13.10.2025) contesting Decision No. 47/5 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 01.10.2025 regarding the petition registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 5157 on 02.07.2025, in relation to IM CA "GRAWE CARAT ASIGURARI" SA, is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested with an administrative litigation action, submitted to the Chisinau Court, Rascani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev St. 3), within 30 days from the date of its communication.

3. 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,