Decision on the Request to Suspend Execution of CNPF Decision No. 49/3 Regarding ÎM CIA TRANSELIT SA

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 November 2025 No. 53/2

Regarding the request to suspend the execution of Decision No. 49/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 15.10.2025 concerning the enforcement summons by ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA of Decision No. 34/8 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 15.07.2025 regarding the petition formulated verbally by Mr [...], registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2254 on 24.03.2025, in relation to ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA.

On 03.11.2025, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Application No. 1820/2025 dated 31.10.2025 (the Application) was registered (under No. 7947), submitted by ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA (participant/insurer), requesting:

1. Admission of this 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 case, in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective, and transparent investigation that offers the real possibility of analyzing the insurer's claims, the insurer is hereby notified that the examination of the factual and legal circumstances relevant to the case, in preliminary order, is carried out by distinguished executors within the CNPF.

In fact, on 15.07.2025, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 34/8 regarding the petition formulated verbally by Mr [...] registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2254 on 24.03.2025, in relation to ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA (Decision No. 34/8/2025).

Regarding the subject matter, according to point 3 of Decision No. 34/8/2025, the insurer was prescribed to take corresponding actions to regularize the Damage File, related to the insured event occurring 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 clauses of the Special Conditions for Medical Insurance for Travel Abroad.

At the same time, in accordance with point 4 of the same Decision, the insurer was to inform the CNPF, within 30 days from the date of notification, about the execution of the aforementioned prescriptions.

Having established the failure of ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA to present the corresponding information within the established period, 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 presentation of information regarding the execution of point 3 of the Decision, including indicating 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 period established by the CNPF.

As a result, the supervisory authority adopted Decision No. 49/3 on 15.10.2025 regarding the enforcement summons by ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA of Decision No. 34/8 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 15.07.2025 regarding the petition formulated verbally by Mr [...], registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2254 on 24.03.2025, in relation to ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA (Decision No. 49/3/2025/Contested Decision).

Under the Contested Decision, 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, ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA was warned that, in case of non-execution of point 3 of Decision No. 34/8/2025 within the period established by the Contested Decision, 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 the annulment of the Contested Decision, as well as the suspension of its execution.

Regarding the request to suspend the execution 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 individual unfavorable administrative act is contested with a preliminary application, the public authority, ex officio or at the request of the affected person, may suspend its execution until the completion of the preliminary procedure. [...] (3) The suspension of execution of an individual unfavorable administrative act is decided by the public authority competent to resolve the preliminary application. The decision regarding the suspension of execution is taken within 5 working days from the moment of registration, unless the law provides otherwise."

In conditions where the object of the Preliminary Application constitutes the annulment and suspension of a decision adopted by the CNPF, whose activity is regulated by Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market 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 the suspension of execution of an individual administrative act.

Moreover, this approach is also grounded in 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 fields of activity may be regulated by special legislative norms derogating from the provisions of this Code only if such 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 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. (12) of Law No. 192/1998, by way of exception, establishes that, "(12) By derogation from Art. 171 para. (4) of the Administrative Code No. 116/2018, filing a request for suspension of execution of an act of the National Commission does not automatically suspend the effects of the contested act until the resolution of the suspension request."

Subsequently, according to the imperative provisions of Art. 23 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998, "(3) The suspension of execution of acts of the National Commission, other than those provided in para. (11), may be ordered by the National Commission, at the request of the recipient of the individual administrative act or a third party whose rights are affected by the individual administrative act, submitted within the preliminary procedure, or by the court only at the request of the plaintiff, submitted simultaneously with the filing of the action, and only if the following conditions are cumulatively met: a) the grounds invoked by the plaintiff in support of the action are pertinent and well-founded and it 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 urgent suspension of the execution 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 the issuance of the contested administrative act."

In this case, with reference to the aforementioned legal norms, it is established that the request to suspend the execution of the Contested Decision does not meet the content requirements imperatively established by the framework law, as the participant did not invoke any grounds in support of the suspension of Decision No. 49/3/2025.

Moreover, to satisfy this requirement, the participant was required to prove the grounds for suspension indicated in Art. 23 para. (3) of Law No. 192/1998.

In this regard, it is necessary to record that the suspension of execution of an administrative act presupposes the temporary interruption of activities or executive measures undertaken by the supervisory authority to realize a public interest.

Accordingly, the purpose of the operation of suspending the execution of an administrative act, instituted by law, consists in providing provisional protection to the rights and interests of the person by applying urgent measures intended to prevent the imminent occurrence of irreparable damages through the continued execution of the individual unfavorable administrative act, regarding which there are serious and reasonable suspicions regarding its legality.

Subsequently, for the suspension of execution of the contested administrative act to be ordered, the person claiming to be harmed must prove the validity of the request, as well as the fact that the suspension aims to prevent an imminent danger that exceeds public interest and could be irreparable.

In this specific case, the participant, requesting the ordering of the suspension of execution of the Contested Decision, did not indicate any grounds for suspension, under which the supervisory authority could conclude that the failure to take the insurance measure would have the impact foreseen by the aforementioned legal norms, as the existence of these conditions is not presumed but must be proven by the person who requested the suspension of execution of the individual administrative act.

In this context, it should be highlighted that, under the conditions of Art. 23 para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998, the burden of proof regarding the existence of pertinent and well-founded grounds, as well as the imminence of harm to the interests and rights of the participant, lies with the latter; in this case, these are entirely lacking.

Complementarily, it should be specified that the grounds for supporting the illegality of Decision No. 49/3/2025 cannot serve as arguments to support the request for suspension of execution of the Contested Decision, as the purpose pursued by these is absolutely distinct and, consequently, the reasoning must be different.

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

In the situation where the insurer failed to justify the validity of the request regarding the necessity of suspending the contested administrative act, according to Art. 23 para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998, "[...] Until proof to the contrary, the existence of a public interest in the immediate and uninterrupted execution of the acts of the National Commission is presumed."

Based on the facts and legal grounds stated above, the request to suspend the execution of Decision No. 49/3/2025 should be rejected.

From the considerations exposed above, on the basis of Art. 18 para. (3), Art. 20 para. (1), para. (6) and para. (7), Art. 22 para. (3) and Art. 23 para. (3) and para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, 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. The request to suspend the execution of Decision No. 49/3 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 15.10.2025 regarding the enforcement summons by ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA of Decision No. 34/8 of the National Financial Market Commission dated 15.07.2025 regarding the petition formulated verbally by Mr [...], registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2254 on 24.03.2025, in relation to ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA, submitted by ÎM CIA "TRANSELIT" SA through Preliminary Application No. 1820/2025 dated 31.10.2025 (registered with CNPF under No. 7947 on 03.11.2025) is rejected.

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

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,
PRESIDENT