Decision on the Request for Re-examination of CNPF Letter No. 05-5/1285 of 14.04.2026

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 12 May 2026 No. 23/3 Regarding the Request for Re-examination of the Letter of the National Financial Market Commission No. 05-5/1285 dated 14.04.2026, submitted by Mr. […] on 28.04.2026

On 15.04.2026, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the message of Mr. […] (petitioner/participant), sent to the CNPF email address office@cnpf.md, was registered (No. 2761), which had as subject observations regarding the manner of examination of the petition within the administrative procedure, concluded by the issuance of CNPF letter No. 05-5/1285 on 14.04.2026.

Regarding the subject, it should be specified that Mr. […]'s message did not meet the requirements set forth in Art. 75 para. (1) lit. d) and lit. e) of the Administrative Code, in the sense that "(1) The petition contains the following elements: […] d) the subject of the petition and its justification; e) the signature of the petitioner or their legal or authorized representative, and in the case of a petition transmitted in electronic form – the electronic signature."

In this regard, pursuant to Art. 76 para. (2) of the Administrative Code "(2) If the petition does not meet the requirements set forth in Art. 72 para. (3) or Art. 75 para. (1) lit. c)–e), the applicant is informed of the shortcomings and is granted a reasonable term to eliminate them. If the petitioner does not eliminate the shortcomings within the granted term, the petition is not examined.", by CNPF letter No. 06-6/1528 dated 27.04.2026, the petitioner was communicated the necessity to eliminate, within 7 days, the shortcomings identified in light of Art. 75 para. (1) of the Administrative Code.

As a result, on 28.04.2026, within the CNPF, the Request for Re-examination was registered (No. 3096), submitted by Mr. […], by which "re-examination of the administrative procedure, limited to the substantial aspects highlighted and unanalyzed, especially regarding the proportionality and economic justification of the applied commission," was requested (Preliminary Request).

Regarding the case, in order to ensure a full, objective, and transparent investigation that offers the real possibility of analyzing the petitioner's claim, it is communicated to him that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in the preliminary order, is carried out by distinguished executors within the supervisory authority.

In fact, on 09.02.2026, within the CNPF, the letter of the National Bank of Moldova (BNM) No. 26-01109/280/574 was registered (No. 772), by which the petition of Mr. […] was re-addressed, for examination, according to competence, having as

2 object the actions of "OTP Bank" SA (Bank) regarding the collection of a commission applied within a bank transfer.

Consequently, that administrative procedure was concluded by the issuance of CNPF letter No. 05-5/1285 dated 14.04.2026 (Contested Letter), communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the legislation.

Not agreeing with the answer provided by the CNPF, the petitioner submitted the Request for Re-examination, with the request formulated above.

In this context, it should be noted that although the document bears the title of Request for Re-examination, it represents a Preliminary Request, which contains the disagreement expressed regarding CNPF letter No. 05-5/1285 dated 14.04.2026.

Accordingly, the Request for Re-examination is examined within the preliminary procedure, in the order provided by Art. 163 – 169 of the Administrative Code.

Given the above, pursuant to Art. 167 para. (3) of the Administrative Code, the term for resolving the preliminary request is 15 calendar days, calculated from 28.04.2026.

Analyzing the arguments exposed 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:

1. In law, Art. 19 of the Administrative Code provides that "The Preliminary Request is the institution that offers a pre-litigation path for resolving administrative disputes.", and Art. 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 annulment in whole or in part of an illegal or null individual administrative act; b) the issuance of an individual administrative act."

2. In accordance with Art. 20 of the Administrative Code, "If a legitimate right or a liberty established by law is violated by an administrative activity, this right may be claimed through an action in administrative contentiousness, [...]", and pursuant to Art. 17, "A harmed right is any right or liberty established by law to which harm is caused by administrative activity."

3. Under the conditions of Art. 166 of the Administrative Code, "The Preliminary Request may be submitted only if the person claims their rights violated by the issuance or rejection of the issuance of an individual administrative act.", and in accordance with Art. 167 para. (1) and para. (3) of the same law, "(1) If the public authority considers the preliminary request 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 public authority issuing resolves the preliminary request within 15 calendar days. The provisions of Art. 60 para. (2)–(5) apply correspondingly."

4. In this case, Art. 78 para. (1) of the Administrative Code establishes that "(1) The administrative procedure is concluded by performing an administrative operation or by issuing an individual administrative act, respectively, concluding an administrative contract."

5. At the same time, pursuant to Art. 15 of the Administrative Code, administrative operations are defined as "[...] manifestations of will or activities of public authorities that do not produce legal effects per se. Administrative operations can only be contested concurrently with the individual administrative act, with the exception of executive administrative operations or those directed against a third party."

3 Thus, inherent to the nature of administrative operations is the fact that they do not produce legal effects.

6. Specifically, the lack of legal effects of administrative operations implies the lack of coercive character and the fact that they do not create, modify, or extinguish a legal relationship or rights and obligations of the parties to the legal relationship; rather, in the case of concluding administrative procedures, administrative operations, similar to the one in this case, constitute only a factual exposition.

7. At the same time, from the systematic interpretation of Art. 17, Art. 20, Art. 166, and Art. 207 of the Administrative Code, it results that the admissibility of a preliminary request is determined by the claim of a harmed right through administrative activity.

8. Thus, from the aspect of its legal nature, the Contested Letter presents the characteristics of an administrative operation in the sense of Art. 15 of the Administrative Code, insofar as it does not produce direct legal effects on the rights and obligations of the participant.

9. Nevertheless, given the content of the allegations formulated by the participant, as well as the necessity 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.

10. Primarily, the petitioner considers that through the Contested Letter, no answer was provided to the subject of the complaint, which concerned exclusively the substantial aspect of the equity and proportionality of the commission in relation to the operation performed. Furthermore, the petitioner does not contest the existence of the applied commission, nor its percentage value in amount, nor the fact that it was provided for in the Bank's tariff list and was known to him.

11. In this context, taking into account the lack of legal limits regarding the size of commissions charged by payment service providers, the invoked aspect should be subject to examination in light of the applicable provisions regarding abusive clauses in the Civil Code, namely Art. 1069 – 1081, with the CNPF being invested, in this sense, pursuant to Art. 37 para. (2) of Law No. 105/2003 regarding consumer protection.

12. Therefore, pursuant to Art. 1069 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) A clause proposed by one of the parties is not individually negotiated if the other party could not influence its content, especially because it was drafted in advance, regardless of whether it is part of standard clauses or not."

13. Relevant are the provisions of Art. 1075 para. (1) and para. (2) of the Civil Code, according to which, "(1) In evaluating the abusive character of a contractual clause in the sense of Art. 1072 para. (1), Art. 1073 and 1074, account shall be taken of: a) compliance with the transparency obligation provided for in Art. 1071; b) the nature of the object of the contract; c) the determining circumstances during the conclusion of the contract; d) the other contractual clauses; and e) the clauses contained in any other contract upon which the contract depends. (2) The evaluation of the abusive character of clauses cannot refer to the object of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, on the one hand, relative to the goods, works, or services provided in exchange for them, on the other hand, in the case where the transparency obligation, provided for in Art. 1071, has been respected. The object of the contract and the ratio between price and quality may be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the abusive character of other contractual clauses."

4

14. In accordance with Art. 1071 para. (1) and para. (2) of the Civil Code, "(1) The person who presents clauses that have not been individually negotiated is obliged to ensure that they are drafted and communicated in clear and intelligible language, as well as to be legible. This requirement is applicable to the text in its entirety, including footnotes, references to other texts, or specifications of any nature. (2) In a contract between a professional and a consumer, the clause proposed by the professional in violation of the transparency obligation imposed by the provisions of para. (1) may be considered abusive only on this sole basis."

15. In this case, the participant expresses disagreement, regarding equity and proportionality, with the commission charged by the Bank for crediting his account, following the execution of a transfer.

16. In this context, Art. 1747 of the Civil Code should be retained, according to which, "By the current bank account contract, the bank undertakes to receive and register in the account holder's (client) account the monetary sums deposited by him or by a third party in cash or transferred from the accounts of other persons, to execute within the limits of the available balance the client's orders regarding the transfer of sums to other persons, the release of cash, as well as to perform other operations in the client's account from his instruction in accordance with the law, the contract, and banking usages, while the client shall pay a remuneration for the provision of the mentioned services."

17. Consequently, it should be observed that bank commissions, pertaining to payment operations, constitute elements of the mechanism for remunerating services provided by the bank and represent components of the contractual cost, accepted by the client within the banking legal relationship.

18. Under the conditions where the commission charged by the Bank represents the remuneration (counter-performance) paid for the service provided, it cannot be subject to evaluation regarding its abusive character, as, pursuant to Art. 1075 para. (2) of the Civil Code, the control of the abusive character of contractual clauses cannot refer to the object of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price or remuneration in relation to the service provided.

19. However, it should be emphasized that, in light of Art. 1075 of the Civil Code, the exemption of such clauses from the control of their abusive character is conditioned by the respect of the transparency obligation, provided for in Art. 1071 of the Civil Code.

20. In this case, the applied commission is provided for in the Bank's Tariff List, published on its official website, which is a method of information that meets the requirements of Art. 40 para. (1) of Law No. 114/2012 regarding payment services and electronic money (Law No. 114/2012).

Furthermore, according to the aforementioned norm, it is sufficient for the payment service provider to make available to the payment beneficiary information regarding the value of each commission pertaining to the payment operation to be borne by the payment beneficiary.

21. In this sense, it should be retained that the consumer's information regarding the inclusion of commissions in the Bank's Tariff List was ensured through the Request for opening the "current/pensioner" account, in which, at point 10, the following is mentioned: "For operations performed on the accounts of natural persons, commissions are charged according to the BANK's Tariffs in force at the moment of performing the operation."

5

22. Moreover, the participant himself confirms through the Request for Re-examination that he does not contest the existence of the commission, its amount, nor the fact that it was provided for in the Bank's Tariff List and brought to his knowledge prior to the performance of the operation.

23. At the same time, it is revealed that the mechanism for controlling abusive clauses, instituted by Art. 1069 – 1081 of the Civil Code, does not allow for an assessment regarding the economic expediency, profitability, or commercial justification of the remuneration charged for services provided, to the extent that the clause regarding the cost of the service is expressed in a clear, intelligible, and accessible manner to the consumer.

Regarding the preliminary procedure, it should be noted that, by CNPF letter No. 06-6/1737 dated 07.05.2026, the petitioner was informed, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 94 para. (2) of the Administrative Code, about the exercise of the right to be heard, in relation to the circumstances relevant to the act to be adopted in the context of the Preliminary Request, as well as about the fact that the hearing is to be performed in writing, being granted a term, until 11.05.2026, 17:00, for sending, to the email address office@cnpf.md, the exposition, as a hearing, which shall contain arguments additional to those related in the Preliminary Request, in case they can be formulated.

As a response, on 08.05.2026, within the CNPF, the petitioner's letter dated 07.05.2026 was registered (No. 3506), by which the disagreement regarding the disproportionate character of the applied commission was reiterated.

Based on the factual circumstances and the applicable legal norms, it is established that the arguments invoked by the participant in the Request for Re-examination are not of a nature to overturn the conclusions exposed in CNPF letter No. 05-5/1285 dated 14.04.2026, nor to demonstrate the existence of any violations of Law No. 114/2012 or the provisions regarding abusive clauses.

Consequently, the Preliminary Request is to be rejected as unfounded.

From the considerations exposed above, pursuant to Art. 18 para. (3), Art. 20 para. (1), para. (6), and para. (7), and Art. 22 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998 regarding the National Financial Market Commission, Art. 17, Art. 19, Art. 162 para. (1), Art. 166, Art. 167 para. (3), Art. 169 para. (2), and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, and points 16 and 19 of the Regulation regarding the organization and functioning of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF Decision No. 57/11/2022),

The National Financial Market Commission DECIDES:

1. The Request for Re-examination of the Letter of the National Financial Market Commission No. 05-5/1285 dated 14.04.2026, submitted by Mr. […] on 28.04.2026 (registered at CNPF with No. 3096 on 28.04.2026), is rejected.

2. This Decision may be contested with an action in administrative contentiousness, submitted to the Chisinau Court, Rascani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev 3 St.), 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 the legislation, and is published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI, PRESIDENT