Regarding the petition of Ms. [...], registered with the National Financial Market Commission under no. 4594 on 08.06.2026, in relation to NCO "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE FINANCIAL MARKET bd. Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt, nr. 77, mun. Chișinău, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md DECISION September 1, 2026 No. 44/2 Regarding the petition of Ms. […], registered with the National Financial Market Commission under no. 4594 on 08.06.2026, in relation to NCO "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL

On 28.05.2026, the petition of Ms. […] (debtor/petitioner/consumer), with the attached documents, submitted by representative Mr. […], was registered (under no. 4190) with the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF), requesting the intervention of the CNPF regarding the legal relationship mentioned below.
On the subject, it should be specified that the petition of Ms. […], submitted by representative Mr. […], did not comply with the requirements of art. 75 para. (1) lit. e) of the Administrative Code, in the sense that, "(1) The petition contains the following elements: [...] e) the signature of the petitioner or their legal or authorized representative, and in the case of a petition submitted electronically – the electronic signature.". In this regard, by CNPF letter no. 05-5/2167 dated 04.06.2026, the petitioner was informed about the need to remedy the identified shortcoming. Consequently, on 08.06.2026, Ms. […] submitted the petition, with the attached documents, in accordance with legal requirements (registered with CNPF under no. 4594), thus remedying the identified shortcoming.

I. Factual circumstances

1. The legal relationship between NCO "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL (creditor/professional) and the debtor was established based on Non-bank Credit Agreement no. […] dated 12.08.2021 (Agreement).
2. The conditions for granting the credit, resulting from the Agreement, are as follows:
   2.1. total credit value: 40,000.00 EUR;
   2.2. interest: 24 percent annually, fixed;
   2.3. credit release commission: 1 percent of the total credit value;
   2.4. penalty for non-payment in full of one of the payments established according to the repayment schedule for 90 days: 0.3 percent per day of the outstanding amount;
   2.5. effective annual interest rate: 27.39 percent;
   2.6. payment method – annuity, credit repaid in installments, according to the Repayment Schedule;
   2.7. total amount payable by the debtor: 72,595.66 EUR;
   2.8. loan term: 60 months.

II. Procedural circumstances

3. By CNPF President's Order no. 365 dated 11.06.2026 regarding the ex officio involvement of NCO "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL in the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition of Ms. […], and the suspension of the administrative procedure, the creditor was involved in the administrative procedure, being requested, by CNPF letter no. 05-5/2360 dated 12.06.2026, to submit the necessary explanations related to the circumstances invoked in the petition, a copy of the credit file, as well as a copy of other relevant supporting documents.
   Also, according to the aforementioned Order, the administrative procedure was suspended until 25.06.2026 inclusive.
4. Accordingly, on 29.06.2026, NCO "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL submitted only the requested documents (registered with CNPF under no. 5333).
5. Additionally, taking into account the imperative of conducting complete investigations, which involves time for thorough examination of the presented evidence and the formation of objective and reasoned conclusions, by CNPF President's Order no. 497 dated 17.07.2026 regarding the extension of the general term of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition submitted by Mr. […], representative of Ms. […], the general term of the administrative procedure was extended until 06.08.2026.
6. In this case, it is attested that NCO "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL did not submit the explanations requested by CNPF letter no. 05-5/2360 dated 12.06.2026.
7. Thus, by CNPF President's Order no. 567 dated 04.08.2026 regarding the repeated suspension of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition submitted by Mr. […], representative of Ms. […], the administrative procedure was suspended until 16.08.2026 inclusive, with the creditor being requested to submit the necessary explanations, according to CNPF letter no. 05-5/2360 dated 12.06.2026.
8. As a result, on 29.06.2026, the creditor submitted the requested documents (registered with CNPF under no. 5333).
9. Subsequently, by CNPF President's Order no. 661 dated 17.08.2026 regarding the suspension of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition submitted by Ms. […], the administrative procedure was suspended until 31.08.2026 inclusive, for the purpose of conducting a written hearing.
   In this case, on 01.09.2026, the creditor submitted the requested documents (registered with CNPF under no. 7664).

III. Legal circumstances
10. In accordance with art. 37 para. (2) of Law no. 105/2003 on consumer protection (Law no. 105/2003), "(2) The National Financial Market Commission controls compliance by the entities indicated in art. 4 para. (2 1) of Law no. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission with the provisions of art. 1069 – 1081 of the Civil Code regarding contracts concluded with consumers and the identification of abusive clauses in contracts, upon consumer's notification or ex officio, under the conditions of the law.".
11. According to art. 1 of Law no. 105/2003, "consumer" is "any natural person who intends to order or procure or who orders, procures or uses products, services for needs unrelated to entrepreneurial or professional activity;".
The same definition is included in art. 3 of Law no. 202/2013 on consumer credit agreements (Law no. 202/2013).

12. According to art. 3 para. (1) and para. (2) of the Civil Code, "(1) Any natural person who, within a civil legal relationship, acts predominantly for purposes unrelated to entrepreneurial or professional activity has the quality of a consumer. A natural person does not have the quality of a consumer if the other party to the civil legal relationship does not have the quality of a professional. (2) Any natural or legal person of public or private law who, within a civil legal relationship, acts for purposes related to entrepreneurial or professional activity, even if the person does not aim to obtain a profit from this activity, has the quality of a professional.".

13. In accordance with art. 16 lit. a) and lit. b) of Law no. 105/2003, "The consumer, when concluding contracts, has the following rights: a) to make free decisions when purchasing the product and service, without being imposed abusive clauses in contracts or clauses that may favor the use of unfair commercial practices, likely to influence their choice; b) to benefit from a clear and precise drafting of contractual clauses, including those regarding main characteristics and warranty conditions, the exact indication of the price or tariff, as well as the precise establishment of credit conditions and interest rates;".

14. Furthermore, the Civil Code establishes, in art. 10 para. (1), that "(1) Natural and legal persons participating in civil legal relationships must exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations in good faith, in accordance with the law, the contract, public order and good morals. Good faith is presumed until proven otherwise.".

15. Complementarily, according to art. 11 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) Good faith is a standard of conduct of a party, characterized by fairness, honesty, openness and taking into account the interests of the other party to the legal relationship.".

16. In accordance with the provisions of art. 1072 of the Civil Code, "(1) In a contract between a professional and a consumer, a clause that has not been individually negotiated is considered abusive if it is proposed by the professional and significantly disadvantages the consumer, contrary to good faith. (2) Articles 1077-1079 include the list of clauses considered abusive in a contract between a professional and a consumer without the need for their evaluation according to para. (1) of this article and art. 1075. (3) The lists provided by the articles mentioned in para. (2) shall not be interpreted as exhaustive lists.".

17. In accordance with 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.", and in accordance with para. (6) of the same article, "(6) A standard clause is considered a clause that has been drafted in advance for a multitude of contracts involving different parties and that has not been individually negotiated.".

18. Correspondingly, art. 1071 of the Civil Code states, "(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 being legible. This requirement applies to the entire text, including footnotes, references to other texts or specifications of any nature. (2) In a contract between a professional and a consumer, a clause proposed by the professional in violation of the transparency obligation imposed by the provisions of para. (1) may be considered abusive solely on this ground.".

19. Additionally, art. 1075 para. (1) of the Civil Code establishes that, "(1) When evaluating the abusive nature of a contractual clause within the meaning of art. 1072 para. (1), art. 1073 and 1074, the following shall be taken into account: a) compliance with the transparency obligation provided for in art. 1071;".

20. Under the conditions of art. 329 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) In consumer contracts, abusive clauses are null and void, as well as clauses that derogate from legal provisions from which it is forbidden to derogate to the detriment of the consumer (protective nullity).".

21. In accordance with art. 943 para. (1) and para. (4) of the Civil Code, "(1) Interest, default interest or, as the case may be, penalty shall be calculated only on the basic amount of the pecuniary obligation (principal). [...] (4) Any clause contrary to the provisions of this article is absolutely null and void.".

IV. CNPF Assessment
22. Analyzing the contractual clauses, the information from the documents presented by the participants in the administrative procedure, through the lens of the requirements of Law no. 105/2003, of Law no. 202/2013 and of the Civil Code, the CNPF reveals the following:
22.1. Ab initio, it is necessary to establish the quality of a professional, which NCO "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL possesses in relation to the consumer, in order to determine the normative framework applicable to the legal relationship under examination.
In accordance with the information from the State Register of Legal Entities, NCO "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL has, as its main object of activity, inter alia, the activity of granting non-bank credits, being registered in the Register of Authorized Non-bank Credit Organizations.
Thus, it is concluded that NCO "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL carries out non-bank credit granting activity, on a professional basis, based on the clauses and conditions offered by it.
22.2. Violation of the method of calculating the interest rate on the credit
According to art. 2.7 pct. 1 of the Agreement, "For the use of the Credit, the Debtor undertakes to pay the Creditor interest calculated at an annual rate of 24.00 (twenty-four point zero zero)%. Interest is calculated on a daily basis on the initial loan amount, based on a year of 360 days, a month of 30 days (for the other 5/6 days of the calendar year, no interest, commissions, penalties will be calculated). Interest is calculated starting from the day the Credit is released.". In accordance with art. 14 para. (1) of Law no. 202/2013, in the wording applicable on the date of concluding the Agreement, "(1) The monthly interest rate shall be calculated based on the calendar year of 365 or 366 days, taking into account, in the numerator of the formula, the actual number of days between due dates, and in the denominator of the same fraction – 365 or, respectively, 366 days.". Therefore, the legislator imperatively established both the temporal basis for calculation and the need to relate the calculation to the actual number of days between due dates, whereas art. 2.7 pct. 1 of the Agreement establishes a distinct methodology, by relating the interest to a conventional year of 360 days and months of 30 days, while excluding certain days of the calendar year from the calculation. Such a calculation method is incompatible with the imperative mechanism provided in art. 14 para. (1) of Law no. 202/2013, as it allows interest to be calculated using a temporal basis different from that established by the legislator and without reference to the actual number of days between due dates.

Thus, by inserting and applying art. 2.7 pct. 1 of the Agreement regarding the calculation of interest based on a year of 360 days and a month of 30 days, the creditor did not comply with the calculation method established by art. 14 para. (1) of Law no. 202/2013.
Since the contractual provision derogates, to the detriment of the consumer, from an imperative legal norm, the sanction of protective nullity, provided for in art. 329 para. (1) of the Civil Code, must also be taken into account.
At the same time, it should be noted that, although art. 2.7 pct. 1 of the Agreement uses the phrase "Interest is calculated on a daily basis on the initial loan amount [...]", contrary to art. 3 of Law no. 202/2013, Annex no. 01 to the Agreement indicates that interest is calculated on the credit balance (amount drawn from the credit), in accordance with the normative framework.
22.3. Violation of legal requirements regarding the amount of compensation in case of early repayment of the credit
According to art. 2.7 pct. 11 of the Agreement, "In the event that the Debtor repays the credit early, the Creditor is entitled to establish and collect a commission of 1.00% of the amount repaid early.".
In relation to the provisions of art. 20 para. (2) of Law no. 202/2013, the simple contractual qualification of the payment as "commission" is not decisive; it must be assessed according to its nature and economic function. The payment provided for in art. 2.7 pct. 11 of the Agreement represents, in essence, compensation related to early repayment and, consequently, is subject to the conditions provided for in art. 20 para. (2) of Law no. 202/2013. At the same time, according to art. 20 para. (2) lit. a) and lit. b) of Law no. 202/2013, in the wording applicable on the date of concluding the Agreement, compensation for early repayment cannot exceed "a) 1% of the value of the credit repaid early, if the period between early repayment and the agreed termination of the credit agreement is greater than one year; b) 0.5% of the value of the credit repaid early, if the period between early repayment and the agreed date for termination of the credit agreement is not greater than one year;". Thus, the legal norm establishes two distinct limits for early repayment compensation, depending on the remaining period until the agreed termination of the Agreement. Furthermore, art. 2.7 pct. 11 of the Agreement establishes, undifferentiated, a commission of 1 percent of the amount repaid early, without distinguishing based on the remaining period until the termination of the agreement. In this context, if early repayment occurs within a period of no more than one year until the termination of the Agreement, the clause allows for the collection of compensation up to twice the legal limit of 0.5 percent. Therefore, art. 2.7 pct. 11 of the Agreement contravenes art. 20 para. (2) of Law no. 202/2013 to the extent that it allows for the collection of compensation above the legal ceiling.
22.4. Non-compliance with mandatory information requirements in the credit agreement
As a result of examining the Agreement and its annexes, it was found that the creditor did not include all mandatory information, provided for in art. 10 para. (3) of Law no. 202/2013, in the Agreement.

Thus, the Agreement does not provide for the consumer's right to request and receive a repayment schedule free of charge during the execution of the Agreement, nor does it contain information regarding the right of withdrawal from the contract, the term, conditions, and procedure for exercising it.
Also, information regarding the possibility of resorting to an out-of-court dispute resolution procedure and an appeal, as well as the name and address of the competent supervisory authority, is missing.
Therefore, the creditor's non-compliance with the mandatory information requirements to be included in the Agreement, provided for in art. 10 para. (3) lit. i), lit. p), lit. s), lit. t) and lit. u) of Law no. 202/2013, is noted.
22.5. Non-compliance with legal requirements regarding the basis for calculating the penalty
According to art. 2.8 pct. 1 of the Agreement, "If the Debtor fails to pay in full within 90 days one of the payments established according to Annex no. 01, these unpaid amounts will be considered outstanding and default penalties will be calculated and collected on them. The penalty constitutes 0.3 (zero point three tenths) % per day of the outstanding amount.".
In accordance with art. 947 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) A penalty clause is a contractual provision by which the parties evaluate the damage in advance, stipulating that the debtor, in case of non-performance of the obligation, shall remit to the creditor a sum of money or another asset (penalty).", and according to para. (3) of the same article, "(3) The penalty may be stipulated as a fixed amount or as a percentage of the value of the obligation guaranteed by the penalty clause or of the unperformed part, including in the form of default interest.". At the same time, according to art. 943 para. (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) Interest, default interest or, as the case may be, penalty shall be calculated only on the basic amount of the pecuniary obligation (principal).", and according to para. (4) of the same article, "(4) Any clause contrary to the provisions of this article is absolutely null and void.". Thus, the aforementioned legal provisions expressly state that the penalty for non-performance of a pecuniary obligation can only be calculated on the basic amount of the pecuniary obligation (principal). Moreover, art. 2.8 pct. 1 of the Agreement states that, in case of non-payment in full of the payments provided in Annex no. 01, the entire unpaid amount is considered outstanding, and the penalty of 0.3 percent per day is calculated on it, without limiting the basis for calculating the penalty exclusively to the part of the outstanding obligation representing the principal. Therefore, by establishing the possibility of calculating the penalty on the outstanding amount, without limiting it to the basic amount of the pecuniary obligation (principal), the clause in art. 2.8 pct. 1 of the Agreement, regarding the basis for calculating the penalty, contravenes the provisions of art. 943 para. (1) of the Civil Code, and the sanction of absolute nullity, stipulated in para. (4) of the same article, is applicable.
22.6. Non-compliance with the provisions of art. 13 of Law no. 202/2013, related to rules regarding credit agreements with floating interest rates
According to art. 2.7. pct. 1 of the Agreement, "For the use of the Credit, the Debtor undertakes to pay the Creditor interest calculated at an annual rate of 24.00 (twenty-four point zero zero)%".
According to art. 2.7 pct. 6 of the Agreement, "Depending on changes in the credit market due to the worsening financial situation in Moldova and the depreciation of MDL,

The Creditor has the right to unilaterally change the interest rate with prior notice to the Debtor at least 10 days before the introduction of the new rate. The signing of this contract represents the express agreement of the Debtor for such a modification and does not require additional agreement. In the event that the Debtor does not agree with the new interest rate, they will repay the Credit early and pay other due payments arising from this contract.”. Therefore, even if the Contract expressly establishes the fixed nature of the interest, the existence of the creditor's discretionary right to unilaterally modify the interest exclusively dictates the floating nature of the interest rate. Starting from the premise that the norm of art. 13 of Law no. 202/2013 applies independently per each component, it should be noted that, although the legislator establishes the rules in a consecutive order, which derives from practice, they do not depend on each other, having a self-standing existence, verified through the lens of art. 13 letters a), b) and c) of the same law. In this case, clause 2.7 point 6 of the Contract presents the following deficiencies:
22.6.1. Non-compliance with the rules by which the interest will be composed of a reference index, established according to the methodology of the National Bank of Moldova (NBM), to which the creditor may add a certain fixed margin throughout the duration of the Contract
Even if art. 13 letter a) of Law no. 202/2013 stipulates that the interest will be composed of a reference index, established according to the NBM methodology, to which the creditor may add a certain fixed margin throughout the duration of the contract, however, the Contract does not establish either the index to be applied in determining the contractual interest rate, nor the fixed margin, applicable by the NBM, to be added to the reference index. Under the stated conditions, within the limits of its discretionary right, the CNPF opines on admitting the impossibility of attributing to the creditor the violation of the provisions of art. 13 letter a) of Law no. 202/2013. Additionally, it should be noted that, under the conditions of art. 6 para. (1) and para. (2) of the Civil Code, “(1) In the event of non-regulation by law or by agreement of the parties and lack of customs, the relations provided for in art. 2 shall apply, if this does not contravene their essence, the norm of civil legislation regulating similar relations (analogy of law). (2) If the application of the analogy of law is impossible, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be determined according to the principles of civil legislation and equity (analogy of right).” Per a contrario, the CNPF considers that the proposed clause does not sufficiently cover the certainty of the elements included in the calculation of the interest rate, as the equivalence of the special norm with the creditor's option can only be ensured by firmly identifying the variations of the interest rate in case of essential changes in the value of the attracted sources, borrowed by the creditor, and by identifying the nature of the normative changes that may affect the creditor's activity.
22.6.2. Non-compliance with the method of calculating interest, which must be expressly indicated in the Contract, specifying the periodicity and/or the conditions under which the floating interest rate changes, both in terms of increase and decrease
The Contract does not indicate the method of calculating interest, nor does it expressly specify the periodicity and/or the conditions under which the floating interest rate changes. Respectively, within the limits provided in art. 13 letter b) of Law no. 202/2013, the creditor and the consumer can agree on the conditions that trigger the modification of the interest rate, offering the possibility to establish the conditions through the temporal factor, by establishing a periodicity (for example, semi-annually, quarterly, annually) or the possibility to establish those circumstances in which the interest rate may change (for example, changes in the inflation rate, changes in the NBM base rate, etc.).

However, the legislator also imposes a quality requirement regarding the conditions for modifying the interest rate related to the credit, which must be expressly established in the contract.
According to the Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language (2nd revised and augmented edition), Romanian Academy, Institute of Linguistics, “Iorgu Iordan-Al. Rosetti” Univers Enciclopedic Gold Publishing House, 2009, the word “expres” means “Which is clearly expressed, which leaves no doubt”.
As such, an insertion in the Contract stating that the creditor has the right to unilaterally modify the interest rate related to the credit depending on “changes in the credit market due to the worsening financial situation in RM and the depreciation of MDL”, without specifying the reference moment and the degree of elasticity of these fluctuations, is insufficient to meet the provision of art. 13 letter b) of Law no. 202/2013.
22.6.3. Non-compliance with the rules related to the elements included in the floating interest rate calculation formula and the obligation to display their value on the creditor's websites and at all its offices
As a result of checking the creditor's website, no information was identified regarding the elements included in the floating interest rate calculation formula and its value. More precisely, the Contract does not contain references to the place of display of the elements and the value of the floating interest rate.
Under these conditions, as well as in the situation where the creditor did not present certain relevant evidence, a violation of the norm of art. 13 letter c) of Law no. 202/2013 is attested, as, through the lens of art. 27 para. (2) of the same law, the creditor's burden is to demonstrate compliance with information requirements.
By comparing clause 2.7 point 6 of the Contract with the requirements of art. 13 of Law no. 202/2013, its illegal nature is established.
22.6.4. Deficiencies regarding transparency and contractual balance
In accordance with art. 10 para. (1) of Law no. 202/2013, credit contracts must be drafted in clear and legible language, and according to para. (3) letter f) of the same article, information regarding the interest rate related to the credit must be specified clearly and concisely.
At the same time, art. 1071 para. (1) of the Civil Code stipulates that “(1) The person who presents individually non-negotiated clauses is obliged to ensure that they are drafted and communicated in clear and intelligible language, as well as being legible. This requirement applies to the entire text, including footnotes, references to other texts or specifications of any nature”, and para. (2) of the same article provides that, “In a contract between a professional and a consumer, a clause proposed by the professional in violation of the transparency obligation imposed by the provisions of para. (1) may be considered abusive solely on this ground.”. According to art. 16 letter b) of Law no. 105/2003, the consumer has the right “b) to benefit from a clear and precise drafting of contractual clauses, including those regarding main characteristics and warranty conditions, the exact indication of the price or tariff, as well as the precise establishment of credit conditions and interest rates;”.

In this regard, the clause related to the floating nature of the interest indicated in the Contract does not comply with the mentioned legal requirements, as it does not allow the consumer to reasonably understand the financial effects of the contract.
Thus, the lack of a floating interest rate calculation formula and explicit conditions for its modification generates uncertainty regarding the obligations assumed by the consumer. In situations where the contract provides for the possibility of unilateral modification of essential clauses (interest, payment terms, etc.), the creditor has the obligation to clearly specify the conditions and limits of this modification, what elements can be modified, and in what situations the modification can occur. Furthermore, according to art. 1072 para. (1) of the Civil Code, an individually non-negotiated clause is abusive if it causes a significant imbalance between the parties, contrary to good faith. Non-compliance with these obligations is, in itself, a ground for declaring the clause abusive. At the same time, art. 1077 para. (1) subpara. 4) letter a) of the Civil Code stipulates that “(1) Clauses that have not been individually negotiated and have as their object or effect: […] 4) the fact that the contract generates obligations for the consumer, but: a) does not generate obligations for the professional;” are considered abusive. Also, this deficiency is equivalent to a violation of art. 1 para. (1) of the Civil Code, which enshrines the principles of equality between parties, consumer protection, and the guarantee of redress in case of infringement of their rights. In conclusion, the named clause is illegal and abusive, as it violates the express provisions of art. 13 of Law no. 202/2013, and also generates a significant imbalance between the parties, does not ensure transparency, predictability, and contractual equality, creating a coercive mechanism that unjustifiably limits the consumer's contractual freedom.
22.7. Clauses regarding credit repayment
Art. 2.7 point 5 of the Contract stipulates: “The account currency for the credit and related interest is Euro (EUR). The payment currency (for execution) is Moldovan Leu (MDL). If, on the payment date of a part of the credit and/or interest, the exchange rate (according to NBM) of the payment currency against the account currency increases. The Debtor will make the payment according to the exchange rate existing on the execution date, otherwise the payment will be made according to the MDL/EUR exchange rate on the credit granting date. That is, to calculate the amount due for payment of the credit installment and interest in MDL, the equivalent of the amount due for payment in EUR (calculated according to the exchange rate on the credit granting day) will be multiplied by the maximum rate between the MDL/EUR exchange rate on the credit granting date and the MDL/EUR exchange rate on the payment date.”. This clause indicates the method of calculating contractual payments, in the context where the payment currency differs from the account currency. On the subject, “the equivalent of the amount due for payment in USD (calculated according to the exchange rate on the credit granting day) will be multiplied by the maximum rate between the MDL/USD exchange rate on the credit granting date and the MDL/USD exchange rate on the payment date.”. Additionally, it should be noted that the hypothesis of a decrease in the exchange rate of the payment currency against the account currency is not regulated. Moreover, the application of the maximum rate between the exchange rate on the credit granting date and the outstanding payment date represents a right that exclusively benefits the creditor, as, in the event of any exchange rate fluctuations, the creditor will collect the highest value.

In this case, art. 873 para. (2) of the Civil Code stipulates that “If the monetary obligation expressed in foreign currency must be executed on the territory of the country, the execution shall be made in national currency, except for cases where the parties have provided for payment in foreign currency and the law allows the receipt/execution on the territory of the Republic of Moldova of payments and transfers in foreign currency. The determination of the equivalent in national currency of the monetary obligation expressed in foreign currency and vice versa shall be made by applying the official exchange rate of the Moldovan Leu valid on the date of execution of the obligation, even if before the due date of a monetary obligation the exchange rate of the payment currency against the currency of the monetary obligation has changed, unless the law or contract provides otherwise. In the case of a monetary reform, the exchange rate existing on the date of the monetary reform shall apply.”. The aforementioned norm is a dispositive one and grants the parties the right to negotiate another method of determining the equivalent in national currency of the monetary obligation expressed in foreign currency. Per a contrario, art. 2.7 point 5 of the Contract represents a significant imbalance between the rights of the consumer and those of the professional. Thus, in the event of a decrease in the exchange rate of the payment currency against the account currency, the contractual clause imposes the application of the maximum rate, which considerably disadvantages the consumer and creates a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties. The revealed imbalance manifests itself in the fact that the debtor is obliged to bear, in all cases, the currency risk and a certain prejudice, as a result of currency changes, the professional/creditor establishing a protection of its financial interests disproportionately to the consumer's interests. In this context, the emphasis is not on whether payments are made in Euro or Moldovan Lei, but on the method of calculating the exchange rate, which is clearly carried out to the detriment of the consumer, imposing artificial financial burdens that create an imbalance between the parties. In conclusion, in the application of the respective clause from the Credit Agreement, any exchange rate difference is placed under the exclusive burden of the borrower, causing a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties, as maintaining the balance between the rights and obligations of the parties can also be evaluated through the lens of reciprocity of rights and obligations in the process of analyzing the Contract. Therefore, the application of discriminatory requirements regarding currency conversion at the time of credit granting compared to the time of credit installment repayment considerably disadvantages the debtor's patrimonial interests. Consequently, it is concluded that art.
2.7 point 5 of the Contract is abusive.
22.8. Clauses regarding costs and expenses borne by the consumer
According to art. 2.9 of the Contract, “1. Taxes, fees, commissions, honoraria, as well as other payments related to the conclusion, registration, and execution of this Contract, and documents related to guarantees fall under the debtor's responsibility. 2. The debtor will cover unforeseen expenses resulting from this Contract, which include additional expenses of the creditor arising from the granting and servicing of the credit, generated by the introduction of modifications in normative or administrative acts, or their interpretation by any public body, which after the signing date of this Contract impose certain conditions on the creditor regarding the granting and servicing of the Credit.”.

In relation to art. 10 para. (1), art. 11 para. (1), art. 1071 and art. 1072 para. (1) of the Civil Code, as well as art. 16 letter b) of Law no. 105/2003, the consumer must be able to clearly understand the meaning and content of the contractual clauses, as well as their effects on the Contract and on the parties.
At the same time, to assess the abusive nature of a clause, it must be verified whether it creates, contrary to good faith, a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties, by comparing the consumer's interests with those of the creditor.
In this case, art. 2.9 of the Contract places on the debtor not only the determined costs related to the conclusion and execution of the Contract, but also unforeseen and additional expenses of the creditor, including those generated by modifications of the normative framework or its interpretation by public authorities.
Transferring such costs and risks, which pertain to the creditor's activity, to the consumer contravenes the principle of good faith and creates a significant imbalance between the parties.
In addition, clause 2.9 point 2 of the Contract does not comply with the transparency requirements, provided in art. 1071 of the Civil Code, as it does not allow the consumer to determine, at the time of concluding the Contract, the nature and extent of the financial obligations assumed; formulations such as “unforeseen expenses”, “additional expenses” or expenses generated by the “interpretation” of normative acts by a public body do not establish clear and verifiable criteria regarding the type of costs that can be charged to the debtor, and the method of their determination. Consequently, the creditor reserves the possibility to subsequently determine what additional expenses are to be borne by the consumer, without the latter being able to foresee the economic consequences of the clause, as, according to art. 1071 para. (2) of the Civil Code, the violation of the transparency obligation can, by itself, constitute grounds for establishing the abusive nature of the clause. Therefore, art. 2.9 of the Contract, by transferring to the consumer undetermined and insufficiently predictable costs and risks, contravenes the requirements of transparency and good faith, creates a significant imbalance between the parties, and presents an abusive character, which determines the abusive nature of the respective clause. In correlation with the above-mentioned findings, the expenses borne by the creditor and placed on the debtor must be revised, as expenses related to the lawyer's fee for contesting judicial acts must be excluded. In this case, these expenses are established according to judicial acts. At the same time, expenses related to the enforcement procedure must be established only by the judicial executor and included by them in the Statement of Calculation of Enforcement Expenses.
22.9. Clauses restricting contractual freedom and debtor's rights
According to art. 3.3 of the Contract, the debtor guarantees that, during the term of the Contract, “a) will not contract (receive) other credits from natural and/or legal persons without the prior written consent of the creditor; b) will not give preference to other debts and obligations different from the debt under this Contract; c) will not alienate property without prior written notification [...] to the creditor.”.

At the same time, art. 3.5 letter a) of the Contract provides, among other things, that the debtor is not entitled “to assume financial obligations (credits, loans, guarantees, suretyships, contractual debts, etc.) without the prior written consent of the creditor”, and also imposes restrictions on the disposition of their rights, the incurring of expenses in case of arrears, and the disclosure of the Contract's content to third parties. In relation to art. 10 para. (1), art. 11 para. (1), art. 775 para. (1) and art. 1072 para. (1) of the Civil Code, the aforementioned clauses have

consumers, Law no. 105/2003 on consumer protection, 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. It is found that OCN "EXTRA CREDIT" SRL violated the provisions of art. 3, art. 10 para. (3) lit. i), lit. p), lit. s), lit. t) and lit. u), art. 13 lit. b) and lit. c), art. 14 para. (1) and art. 20 para. (2) of Law no. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts and art. 943 para. (1) of the Civil Code.
2. The abusive nature of the clauses in Non-bank Credit Agreement no. [...] dated 12.08.2021, included at:
   2.1. art. 2.7 point 5, in the part which stipulates that: "The account currency of the credit and related interest is euro (EUR). The payment currency (for execution) is Moldovan leu (MDL). If, on the payment date of a part of the credit and/or interest, the exchange rate (according to BNM) of the payment currency against the account currency increases, the Debtor will make the payment according to the exchange rate existing on the execution date, otherwise the payment will be made according to the MDL/EUR exchange rate on the credit granting date. That is, to calculate the amount due for payment of the credit installment and interest in MDL, the equivalent of the amount due for payment in EUR (calculated according to the exchange rate on the credit granting day) will be multiplied by the maximum rate between the MDL/EUR exchange rate on the credit granting date and the MDL/EUR exchange rate on the payment date.".
   2.2. art. 2.9 points 1 and 2, according to which "1. Taxes, duties, commissions, fees, as well as other payments related to the conclusion, registration and execution of this Contract, and documents related to guarantees, shall be borne by the Debtor. 2. The Debtor shall cover unforeseen expenses resulting from this Contract, which include additional expenses of the Creditor arising from the granting and servicing of the credit, generated by the introduction of modifications in normative or administrative acts, or their interpretation by any public body, which after the signing date of this Contract impose certain conditions on the Creditor regarding the granting and servicing of the Credit.";
   2.3. art. 3.3, according to which the debtor "a) shall not contract (receive) other credits from natural and/or legal persons without the prior written consent of the Creditor"; "b) shall not give preference to other debts and obligations different from the debt under this Contract"; "c) shall not alienate property without prior written notification [...] of the Creditor";
   2.4. art. 3.5 lit. a), which stipulates that the debtor is not entitled "to assume financial obligations (credits, loans, guarantees, suretyships, contractual debts, etc.) without the written consent of the Creditor".
3. An action is filed in court, with a view to requesting the annulment of the clauses that contravene the provisions of Law no. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts, as well as the abusive clauses indicated in points 1 and 2.
4. Control over the execution of point 3 of the operative part of this Decision is assigned to the Legal Department.
5. This Decision may be challenged by submitting a prior request to the CNPF (MD-2012, mun. Chișinău, bd. Ștefan cel Mare și Sfânt, no. 77), within 30 days from the date of communication.
6. This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption and shall be communicated to the recipients according to legislation and published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).
   Adrian GHEORGHIȚĂ,
   VICE-PRESIDENT