Decision on the Preliminary Request Submitted by Mr. Ion Bălanuță Regarding the Cancellation of CNPF Letter No. 05-5/2982 of 13.07.2026 — NCFM — MD

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION
77 Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd., Chisinau, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md DECISION 4 August 2026 No. 38/1 Regarding the Preliminary Request submitted by Mr. Ion Bălanuță, representative of Ms. [...], regarding the cancellation of the letter of the National Financial Market Commission No. 05-5/2982 dated 13.07.2026

On 24.07.2026, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Request was registered (No. 6321), submitted by Mr. Ion Bălanuță, representative of Ms. [...]
(petitioner/participant), by which the following is requested:

"1. The total cancellation of administrative act No. 05-5/2982 of 13.07.2026 - 'Re: completion of the administrative procedure', as being unfounded and unjustified.
2. The establishment of the illegality of the refusal of AEI "Economprosper" regarding the provision of information and documents indicated in the descriptive part and justification of this preliminary request and the initial complaint.
3. Sanctioning AEI "Economprosper" in accordance with current legislation." (Preliminary Request).

In this case, in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation, which would offer the real possibility of analyzing the petitioner's claims, the petitioner is informed that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in preliminary order, is carried out by distinguished executors within the supervisory authority.

In fact, on 14.05.2026, within the CNPF, the petition submitted by Mr. Ion Bălanuță, representative of Ms. [...] (debtor), with the documents attached to it, was registered (No. 3702), having as its object the verification of the legality of the actions/inactions of AEI "ECONOMPROSPER" (creditor), related to the request submitted by Mr. Ion Bălanuță, on behalf of the debtor, for information and a copy of Loan Contract No. [...] dated 11.03.2024 (Loan Contract), which remained unanswered.

Consequently, that administrative procedure was concluded by the issuance of CNPF letter No. 05-5/2982 dated 13.07.2026 (Contested Letter), communicated to the petitioner in accordance with legislation.

Not agreeing with the response provided by the CNPF, the participant submitted a Preliminary Request, with the request formulated above.

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

In law, Article 19 of the Administrative Code provides that "The Preliminary Request is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for the resolution of administrative disputes," and Article 162 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law stipulate that "(1) The preliminary procedure aims to verify the legality of individual administrative acts. [...] (3) The Preliminary Request may be directed towards:
a) the total or partial cancellation of an illegal or null individual administrative act; b) the issuance of an individual administrative act."
In accordance with Article 20 of the Administrative Code, "If an administrative activity violates a legitimate right or freedom established by law, this right may be claimed through an administrative litigation action, [...]", and according to Article 17, "A violated right is any right or freedom established by law to which an administrative activity causes harm."
Under the conditions of Article 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Request may be submitted only if the person claims the rights violated by the issuance or rejection of the issuance of an individual administrative act," and in accordance with Article 167 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law, "(1) If it considers the preliminary request to be admissible and well-founded, the issuing public authority cancels the contested individual administrative act in total or in part or issues the requested individual administrative act. [...] (3) The issuing public authority resolves the preliminary request within 15 calendar days. The provisions of Article 60 para. (2) – (5) apply correspondingly."
From the systematic interpretation of Article 17, Article 20, Article 166, and Article 207 of the Administrative Code, it results that the admissibility of a preliminary request is determined by the claim of a violated right through administrative activity.
Given the content of the allegations formulated by the participant, as well as the need to ensure an effective, transparent, and exhaustive examination of the petition, the supervisory authority will proceed to verify the arguments invoked by the Preliminary Request, including regarding the correctness of the assessments exposed in the Contested Letter.
In this case, by the Contested Letter, the CNPF concluded on the non-compliance by AEI "ECONOMPROSPER" with the legal deadline for resolving the complaint.
At the same time, the Contested Letter does not identify the legal consequences of that finding.
On the subject, the petitioner requested the establishment of the illegality of the creditor's refusal to provide, upon request sent by the debtor's representative to the email address aeieconomprosper@gmail.com, a copy of the Loan Contract and information regarding its execution.
Specifically, invoking Article 82 para. (4) and para. (6) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission (Law No. 192/1998/Framework Law), the petitioner asserts that the creditor did not comply with legal provisions and did not present the consumer with the requested information and documents within the legal term, and consequently, the consumer was deprived of the right to resolve the dispute amicably, being sued for debt collection.
With reference to this statement, it is necessary to mention that Article 82 of Law No. 192/1998 establishes special requirements concerning the resolution of complaints from consumers of financial services.
In this context, not every request addressed to the subject provided for in Article 4 para. (21) of Law No. 192/1998 constitutes a complaint, within the meaning of Article 82 para. (4) of the same law, for, by complaint, the non-compliance with the provisions of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection (Law No. 105/2003), special norms regulating the financial service provided, or obligations assumed under the concluded contract is invoked.
Furthermore, the complaint represents the mechanism by which the consumer requests the remediation of an alleged violation of their rights.
Correlatively, it should be noted that, according to Article 1 of Law No. 105/2003, the complaint constitutes the written declaration, supported by evidentiary documents, by which a merchant has committed or is likely to commit a violation of normative acts that protect consumer interests.
Accordingly, for the application of the term provided for in Article 82 para. (6) of Law No. 192/1998, it is necessary that the request addressed to the creditor constitute, by its content, a complaint, within the meaning of Article 82 para. (4) of the framework law.
In the case submitted for examination, the request addressed to AEI "ECONOMPROSPER" had as its object the provision to the debtor's representative of information and a copy of the Loan Contract, without requesting the remediation of an alleged violation of the debtor's rights.
Therefore, the aforementioned request, by its object and purpose, does not meet the elements of a complaint, within the meaning of Article 82 para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998, in conjunction with the concept established in Law No. 105/2003.
Consequently, the term of 15 working days, provided for in Article 82 para. (6) of the framework law, is not applicable. Implicitly, Article 7 of the same article, according to which the failure to provide a response within the term established in para. (6) is considered a tacit refusal, also has no incidence.
Accordingly, the CNPF's conclusion that AEI "ECONOMPROSPER" provided the response to the debtor's representative, "with exceeding the legal term for examining the request," is incorrect.
Additionally, since the provisions of Article 82 para. (4) – (8) of Law No. 192/1998 are not applicable to the legal relationship submitted for examination, there is no basis for establishing the illegality of the creditor's conduct, within the meaning of the request at point 2 of the Preliminary Request, which overturns the conclusion retained in the Contested Letter.
Correspondingly, the request formulated at point 3 of the Preliminary Request is unfounded, as it is subordinate to the alleged establishment of a violation of the law.
In this case, it should be noted that, although the formulated conclusion is to be revised, the statement used in the Contested Letter does not influence the legality of the adopted solution, given the lack of a subsequent action by the supervisory authority to initiate the sanctioning procedure.
Consequently, it should be specified that the Contested Letter contains conclusions that need to be maintained by the CNPF. Thus, no framing flaws or exposition errors are identified regarding the conclusions concerning the clarification of circumstances invoked in the petition and the presentation by AEI "ECONOMPROSPER" of the requested response.

Therefore, relating the factual circumstances of the case to the applicable legal norms, it is concluded that the Preliminary Request should be rejected.

From the considerations exposed above, on the basis of Article 18 para. (3), Article 20 para. (1), para. (6) and para. (7) and Article 22 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, Article 17, Article 19, Article 162 para. (1) and para. (3), Article 166, Article 167 para. (1) and para. (3), Article 169 para. (2) and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, and 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:

CNPF letter No. 05-5/2982 dated 13.07.2026 is amended by excluding from its content the text "and with exceeding the legal term for examining the request".
The Preliminary Request submitted by Mr. Ion Bălanuță, representative of Ms. [...], regarding the cancellation of CNPF letter No. 05-5/2982 dated 13.07.2026 (registered at CNPF with No. 6321 on 24.07.2026) is rejected.
This Decision may be contested with an administrative litigation action, submitted to the Chisinau Court, Râșcani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev 3 St.), within 30 days from the date of its communication.
This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption, is communicated to the recipients in accordance with legislation, and is published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI,
PRESIDENT