Decision on the Request to Suspend the Execution of CNPF Decision No. 3/3 of 20.01.2026 Regarding SA "ACORD GRUP" 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 24 February 2026 No. 10/4 Regarding the request for suspension of the execution of the Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 3/3 dated 20.01.2026 concerning the petitions registered with the National Financial Market Commission No. 8299 and No. 8567 on
14.11.2025 and, respectively, on
27.11.2025, in relation to SA "ACORD GRUP" SA

On 18.02.2026, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/supervisory authority), the Preliminary Application No. 240/2026 dated 17.02.2026 (Preliminary Application) was registered (No. 1018), submitted by SA "ACORD GRUP" SA (insurer/participant), requesting:
"1. As a principal claim, to admit this preliminary application and to annul (revoke) in full Decision CNPF No. 3/3 of 20.01.2026 as being issued with erroneous application of the law, exceeding material competence, and with incorrect interpretation of the norms of Law No. 106/2022.
2. As a secondary claim, to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the interests
of ACORD GRUP, as well as those of other professional participants in the insurance market of the Republic of Moldova, to order the suspension of the execution of Decision CNPF No. 3/3 of 20.01.2026 until the completion of the preliminary procedure."

In this case, it should be noted that, in order to ensure a full, objective, and transparent investigation that offers the real possibility of analyzing the claim, the participant 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 CNPF.

In fact, on 14.11.2025, and additionally on 27.11.2025, within the CNPF, the petitions submitted by Ms. [...], lawyer, on behalf of Mr. [...] and "[...]" SRL, were registered (No. 8299 and, respectively, No. 8567), requesting CNPF intervention in relation to the actions of SA "ACORD GRUP" SA.

Following the investigations conducted in the context of the respective administrative procedure, and the analysis of the materials/evidence presented by the participants in the procedure, within the framework of the applicable regulatory framework for contractual relations, CNPF adopted Decision No. 3/3 dated 20.10.2026 regarding the petitions registered with the National Financial Market Commission No. 8299 and No. 8567 on 14.11.2025 and, respectively, on 27.11.2025, in relation to SA "ACORD GRUP" SA (Decision No. 3/3/2026/Contested Decision). By this Decision, CNPF decided:

2
"1. It is established that SA "ACORD GRUP" SA violated Art. 13 para. (1) of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection by using incorrect commercial practices in providing information related to the calculation of the insurance premium and at the termination of the mandatory third-party liability insurance contract No. [...], issued on 02.09.2025.
2. It is established that SA "ACORD GRUP" SA violated Art. 89 para. (1)
letters a), b), and d) of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance or reinsurance activity.
3. It is established that SA "ACORD GRUP" SA violated Art. 12 para. (3)
and para. (7) of Law No. 106/2022 on mandatory third-party liability insurance for damages caused by vehicles.
4. SA "ACORD GRUP" SA is prohibited from applying incorrect commercial
practices, as misleading omissions, by omitting essential information or providing it in a unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous manner, which in any circumstance determines or is likely to determine the consumer to make a transaction decision that they would not have made in another situation.
5. SA "ACORD GRUP" SA is prohibited from applying aggressive commercial
practices, by limiting the freedom and behavior of the consumer regarding the product, through unjustified and practical influence, which determines or is likely to determine the consumer to make a transaction decision that they would not have made otherwise.
6. Mr. [...] is informed of the right to request remedial measures,
proportional and effective, including price reduction or refund of value, through contract termination, as well as compensation for damages suffered, as provided in Art. 15 para. (6) of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection.
7. SA "ACORD GRUP" SA is prescribed to revise internal procedures regarding
notification, premium recalculation, and termination of third-party liability insurance contracts (RCA), in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of Law No. 106/2022 on mandatory third-party liability insurance for damages caused by vehicles and the requirements of consumer protection legislation."

Disagreeing with the CNPF findings, the insurer submitted the Preliminary Application, requesting the annulment of the contested Decision, as well as the suspension of its execution.

Regarding the request for suspension of 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 administrative act unfavorable 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 administrative act unfavorable is decided by the public authority competent for resolving 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."

Under the conditions where the object of the Preliminary Application is the annulment and suspension of a decision adopted by 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 contains

3 special norms regarding the grounds and conditions for suspension of execution of an individual administrative act.

Moreover, this approach is also justified by the 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 related to administrative activity concerning specific fields of activity can be regulated by special legislative norms derogating from the provisions of this Code only if such regulation is absolutely necessary and does not contravene the principles of this Code." and "[...] Special legal norms are applicable exclusively 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 applies."

In this sense, it should be noted a priori 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 for in para. (11), may be ordered by the National Commission, at the request of the recipient of the individual administrative act or of 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 the urgent ordering of the suspension of 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 for suspension of the execution of the contested Decision does not meet the content requirements stated imperatively by the framework law, as the insurer did not invoke any ground in support of the suspension of the contested Decision.

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 implies the temporary interruption of certain activities or executive measures undertaken by the supervisory authority, in order to realize a public interest.

Accordingly, the purpose of the operation of suspending the execution of an administrative act, established by law, consists in offering 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 administrative act unfavorable, regarding which there are serious and reasonable suspicions concerning its legality.

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

In this specific case, the insurer, requesting the ordering of the suspension of execution of the contested Decision, did not indicate any ground for suspension, on the basis of which the supervisory authority could conclude that not taking the precautionary 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 sense, the citation of Art. 172 of the Administrative Code does not constitute, per se, a ground for suspension of the individual administrative act, as that norm merely institutionalizes the suspension operation and indicates the circumstances under which it may be ordered.

In this context, it should be highlighted that, under the conditions of Art. 23 para. (4) of Law No. 192/1998, the burden of proving 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.

Consequently, the arguments supporting the suspension of execution of the administrative act must be of an evident and uncontested nature, which would not imply a direct examination of the merits of the Preliminary Application.

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

In the situation where the insurer failed to justify the merit 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 for suspension of the execution of Decision No. 3/3/2026 should be rejected.

From the considerations exposed above, on the basis of Art. 18 para. (3), Art. 20 para. (1) and para. (6), Art. 22 para. (3), Art. 23 para. (3) and para. (4) and Art. 25 para. (2) 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 for suspension of the execution of Decision of the National Financial Market Commission No. 3/3 dated 20.01.2026 regarding the petitions registered with the National Financial Market Commission No. 8299 and No. 8567 on 14.11.2025 and, respectively, on 27.11.2025, in relation to SA "ACORD GRUP" SA, submitted by SA "ACORD GRUP" SA through the Preliminary Application dated 17.02.2026 (registered with CNPF No. 1018 on 18.02.2026) is rejected.
2. This Decision may be contested with an administrative litigation action, submitted to the Chisinau Court, Rascani seat (MD-2068, Chisinau, Kiev 3 St.), together with the individual administrative act adopted upon completion of the preliminary procedure.

5
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 CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Vladimir RUSNAC,
VICE-PRESIDENT