Order No. 56/2 of the National Financial Market Commission Regarding the Preliminary Request to Announce Letter No. 05-5/3636

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

ORDER November 24, 2025 No. 56/2 Regarding the Preliminary Request submitted by Mr. [...], representative of Ms. [...], concerning the annulment of CNPF letter No. 05-5/3636 dated September 10, 2025

On October 13, 2025, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/authority), the Preliminary Request was registered (No. 7471), submitted by Mr. [...], representative of Ms. [...] (consumer), requesting the verification of the legality of CNPF letter No. 05-5/3636 dated September 10, 2025, with the subsequent request for:

• annulment (revocation) of the administrative act No. 05-5/3636 dated 10.09.2025 regarding the completion of the administrative procedure, initiated based on the petition of Mr. [...], representative of Ms. [...];
• establishment of the violation by CA "DONARIS VIENNA INSURANCE GROUP" SA of the obligations provided by Law No. 92/2022 on insurance and reinsurance activity and Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection, in relation to the insured;
• obliging the insurer to remedy the identified violations, re-evaluate Claim File No. [...] and pay the compensation in full amounting to 91,138 lei, according to the repair estimate issued by SC [...] SRL;
• ordering the imposition of a contraventional or administrative sanction, according to CNPF's competencies, on the persons responsible for admitting and perpetuating these violations;
• transmitting an official recommendation to CA "DONARIS VIENNA INSURANCE GROUP" SA regarding the cessation of abusive practices and the modification of standard contractual conditions in the sense of respecting consumer rights.

In fact, on July 1, 2025, the Request regarding objections to the amount of insurance compensation indicated in disposition No. [...] communicated on February 11, 2025, via act No. 171/2025, was received by the CNPF. That request concerned the manner of regularizing the claim file by CA "DONARIS VIENNA INSURANCE GROUP" SA (professional) and the payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Contract (AUTOCASCO) dated April 13, 2024 (Insurance Contract), following the occurrence of the insured event on December 7, 2024.

Subsequently, that administrative procedure was completed by the issuance of CNPF letter No. 05-5/3636 dated September 10, 2025 (the contested act), communicated to the consumer in accordance with legislation.

Disagreeing with the response provided by the CNPF, the consumer submitted the Preliminary Request with the aforementioned requests.

Regarding the preliminary procedure, it is noted that by the Disposition of the President of the CNPF No. 1125 dated October 27, 2025, regarding the extension of the preliminary procedure term, initiated by the Preliminary Request submitted by Mr. [...], representative of Ms. [...], the term of the preliminary procedure was extended until November 12, 2025.

Also, by the Disposition of the President of the CNPF No. 1151 dated November 6, 2025, regarding the ex officio involvement of CA "DONARIS VIENNA INSURANCE GROUP" SA in the preliminary procedure, initiated by the Preliminary Request submitted by Mr. [...], representative of Ms. [...], and the suspension of the preliminary procedure, given the imperative of conducting complete investigations, forming objective and motivated conclusions, it was established the necessity of requesting clarifications from CA "DONARIS VIENNA INSURANCE GROUP" SA regarding the handling of the claim file in this case.

In this context, by CNPF letter No. 06-5/4417 dated November 7, 2025, the authority addressed a series of questions to the professional for the purpose of elucidating the aspects reported by the consumer in the Preliminary Request. Therefore, in letter No. 1823/2025 dated November 8, 2025 (registered at CNPF with No. 8392 dated November 19, 2025), the professional provided answers to the CNPF's questions.

By 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 authority's findings, 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 total or partial annulment 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 an administrative activity violates a legitimate right or a freedom established by law, this right may be claimed through an administrative litigation action, [...]", and according to Art. 17, "A harmed right is any right or freedom established by law to which/which is affected 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 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 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 finalized by performing an administrative operation or by issuing an individual administrative act, respectively, concluding an administrative contract."

5. At the same time, according 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." 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 a 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 completing administrative procedures, administrative operations, similar to the one in this case, constitute only a factual exposition.

7. Complementarily, 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. In this case, in the absence of a constraining effect on the participant, the contested act does not interfere with their rights or obligations, respectively, there is no relevance to the existence of a harmed right.

Nevertheless, on principles of good faith, transparency, and comprehensibility of the administrative procedure, the assessment of the legality of the contested act presupposes verifying the correctness of the response provided by submitting the analysis, repeatedly, of the factual circumstances established in light of the legislation applicable to the case, within the limits of the competencies attributed by law to the CNPF, taking into account, at the same time, the allegations invoked by the consumer in the Preliminary Request. In this sense, it is retained that the consumer's request regarding the substantive re-examination of the petition submitted on July 1, 2025, is considered satisfied, as this constitutes an intrinsic condition of the preliminary procedure.

Ab initio, with reference to the arguments brought by the consumer in support of their request, regarding procedural aspects and the incidence of the CNPF's competence, it is noted that in this case, under the conditions of the Administrative Code, the authority initiated the administrative procedure based on the petition submitted by the consumer, and the corresponding investigations associated with a petition of this kind were carried out. It is additionally mentioned that the administrative procedure initiated at the petition of Ms. [...], contrary to the presumption found in the Preliminary Request, cannot be qualified as a control procedure. Or, the administrative control procedure constitutes a distinct branch of the administrative activity carried out by the CNPF, under the Regulation regarding the administrative control procedure, approved by CNPF Order No. 60/10 dated December 5, 2023 (Regulation No. 60/10/2023).

According to point 3 of Regulation No. 60/10/2023, in the case of petitions requesting the intervention of the authority by conducting a control, the CNPF initially carries out the administrative procedure by ex officio investigation of the state of facts, based on the circumstances reflected in the petition. Or, the CNPF carried out the administrative procedure and performed the corresponding investigations, and in the absence of conclusions indicating deviations that require coercive decisions, the administrative procedure was completed by an administrative operation, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 78 of the Administrative Code.

With reference to the request for annulment of letter No. 05-5/3636 dated September 10, 2025, it is retained that following the research of the factual and legal circumstances found in the administrative file, it is a priori established that the case directly concerns the enforcement of the Insurance Contract. Following the occurrence of the insured event on December 7, 2024, the professional opened the claim file on December 13, 2024, and on the same day, the damage assessment report was drawn up, countersigned by Ms. [...]. According to the consumer's assertions, confirmed by the professional, the damage was subsequently evaluated by [...] SRL, which is the unit agreed upon by the parties in the Damage Assessment Report for the repair of the vehicle.

On January 2, 2025, invoice No. [...] dated December 30, 2024, issued by [...] SRL in the amount of 91,138 lei, was received by the professional.

It will be retained that, although the professional claims that the respective invoice is found in the claim file, in the copy presented to the CNPF, it is missing.

At the same time, the legislation does not provide an exhaustive list of documents that must be contained in the claim file. In this sense, the Contract establishes the mandatory documents to be presented by the consumer in the event of damage. Per contra, for the purpose of evaluating the correctness of the claim file regularization process, that document is essential for the authority, which is why the professional is urged to exercise maximum diligence in presenting materials to the authority.

According to point 7.1.18. of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Conditions (other than railway) "Based on these Insurance Conditions, compensation is not granted for: [...] 7.1.18. Damages caused to the motor vehicle, its components, or parts due to the fact that the Insured or the user and/or passengers in the vehicle did not take actions dependent on them to avoid the occurrence of the insured risk or to limit the damages caused by its occurrence, namely: by opening the vehicle doors while moving or starting from a standstill with the doors open; not engaging the parking brake when stopping or parking the vehicle."

Additionally, according to the Contravention Report, Ms. [...] driving the KIA SPORTAGE vehicle with registration number [...], "did not take into account the road situation, did not show increased caution in traffic, as a result caused a collision."

Subsequently, according to Art. 1842 of the Civil Code "(1) A clause of an insurance contract establishes precautionary measures when that clause, formulated as an obligation or as a condition for the payment of indemnity or compensation by the insurer, requires the policyholder or the insured, before the occurrence of the insured event, to perform or abstain from certain actions that do not relate to the payment of the insurance premium. [...] (3) If the insurance contract provides that, in the event of non-compliance with the precautionary measure, the insurer is released totally or partially from liability, then that clause can only be invoked to the extent that the damage was caused by the non-compliance with it by the policyholder or, as the case may be, the insured with the intention to cause damage or due to gross fault, if they knew or should have known that there was a probability that the damage would occur. (4) The policyholder or, as the case may be, the insured has the right to insurance indemnity or compensation even when the damage is caused by the non-compliance with the precautionary measure due to negligence. A clause that excludes liability also in the case of negligence of the policyholder or, as the case may be, the insured in the non-compliance with the precautionary measure can be invoked if it is clearly expressed."

Under the factual and legal conditions stated, it resides that the direct establishment of the incidence of the respective contractual clause is conditioned by the qualification of the fact and the identification of the subjective aspect through the analysis of forms of fault related to the case. Such an assessment exceeds the framework of the CNPF's competence, a fact communicated by the authority to the consumer in the contested act.

In this case, the professional assessed the respective clause as applicable, under the conditions that the consumer was traveling with the door open at the time of the accident.

Thus, the professional considered it justified to request from [...] SRL a revised invoice by dividing the amount of the damage covered by insurance and that which exceeds the insurance conditions. It is retained that, within the preliminary procedure, no express norms were identified that provide for the phased process of damage assessment. Accordingly, the request for invoice revision constitutes an element of opportunity that the professional assesses.

Correlatively, with reference to the concurrence of processes under the management of the professional and the manner in which they operate communication with insured persons, it is retained that the Insurance Contract does not provide specific procedures in the event of submitting a claim regarding the amount of compensation. Complementarily, the professional notified the CNPF for hearing that they do not have distinct internal regulations applicable to these cases.

Under the announced conditions, it is established the lack of concrete legal grounds that could require the CNPF (within the limits of its competence) to take coercive measures directed towards the professional, a conclusion also found in the contested act. Thus, the CNPF does not retain in this case grounds for revising the substantive position exposed in the contested act, which is why the requests found in point 2, point 6, point 7, and point 8 of the Preliminary Request are to be rejected.

With reference to the request to initiate an administrative procedure regarding the conduct of control in the field of consumer rights protection in connection with the insurance activity carried out by the professional, the aforementioned points are reiterated regarding the essential differences between the administrative procedure initiated by petition and the administrative control procedure.

Additionally, it should be retained that, in the sense of exercising its control competencies, the CNPF takes into account information made known from within administrative procedures, implicitly in the process of planning control activity, based on risk criteria.

With reference to the involvement in the administrative procedure of third parties, CA "DONARIS VIENNA INSURANCE GROUP" SA and its founder, the CNPF notifies the fact that the professional was involved as a participant both within the administrative procedure and within the preliminary procedure. On the other hand, with reference to the request for the involvement of the founder, the CNPF retains that according to Art. 44 para. (3) of the Administrative Code, "(3) The public authority is obliged to involve in the administrative procedure, ex officio or upon request, persons whose rights may be affected by the administrative procedure. If they have knowledge of such persons, the public authority informs them about the initiation or conduct of the administrative procedure." Complementarily, under the conditions of Art. 16 and Art. 137, the authority carries out administrative activity within the limits of its discretionary right, being entitled to choose between several possible solutions corresponding to the purpose of the law when applying a legal provision. Correlatively, according to Art. 22 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, the public authority establishes the type and volume of investigations. Under such conditions, taking into account the regulatory framework of the institution "founder," the CNPF did not identify the opportunity of involving them in the preliminary procedure.

Additionally and correlatively to the request found in point 9 of the Preliminary Request, the CNPF admits the existence in this case of deficiencies in interaction between the professional and the consumer. The CNPF retains that, according to Art. 89 para. (1) lit. a) and lit. b) of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance and reinsurance activity, "(1) For the protection of the consumer and for the quality of insurance or reinsurance services, the insurance or reinsurance company is obliged, as well as the insurance intermediary are obliged: a) to carry out their activities with professionalism, showing attention and devotion to policyholders, insured persons, reinsured persons, insurance beneficiaries, and injured third parties; 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; [...]". In this sense, the CNPF appreciates that these obligations manifest inter alia through the establishment of correct and responsible communication between the professional and consumers. Communication between professionals and consumers must be consistent, clear, complete, and free of ambiguities, thus ensuring the full understanding of rights, obligations, and procedural steps.

Respect for these requirements derives both from legal obligations that protect the fundamental rights of consumers – especially the right to correct, accessible, and sufficient information – as well as from general principles of professional conduct, such as transparency, fairness, and diligence.

Deficient or contradictory communication can directly affect the consumer's capacity to make informed decisions, can generate confusion regarding necessary documents or the status of the claim file, and can lead to unjustified prolongation of the compensation process.

In this context, the CNPF emphasizes that such a practice constitutes not only a legal obligation but also an essential condition for protecting consumer interests and ensuring the efficient and transparent functioning of the insurance services market and the financial sector, as a whole.

With reference to procedural aspects, it is necessary to mention that, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 94 of the Administrative Code, by CNPF letter No. 06-5/4134 dated October 17, 2025, the consumer was informed about the exercise of the right to be heard, on October 23, 2025, at 09:00, regarding the facts and circumstances relevant to the act to be adopted, with the request to confirm participation or refusal to participate in the hearing by October 22, 2025, at 17:00.

Subsequently, by the message sent on October 21, 2025, from the email address [...], the consumer confirmed receipt of it.

Subsequently, Ms. [...], together with her representative based on a legal mandate, appeared at the hearing on the cited date and time, who fully supported the position exposed in the Preliminary Request, which was recorded in the Hearing Record of the participant in the administrative procedure. Additionally, during the hearings, the consumer together with their representative expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the alleged deviations admitted by the professional in the handling of claim file No. [...], especially with reference to the separation of the initial invoice into two distinct invoices as well as regarding the amount of compensation.

From the considerations exposed above, under the terms 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, Art. 17, Art. 19, Art. 162 para. (1) and para. (3), Art. 165 para. (1), Art. 166, Art. 167 para. (3), Art. 169 para. (2), and para. (3) of the Administrative Code, and the Regulation regarding the organization and functioning of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF Order No. 57/11/2022),

The National Financial Market Commission DECIDES:

1. The Preliminary Request submitted by Mr. [...], representative of Ms. [...], regarding the annulment of CNPF letter No. 05-5/3636 dated September 10, 2025 (registered at CNPF with No. 7471 on October 13, 2025) is rejected.

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

3. This Order 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