Regarding the Preliminary Request of OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL, submitted by its representative Mr. Octavian Cazac, concerning the partial cancellation of CNPF Decision No. 40/1 dated 12.08.2026 relating to the Preliminary Request against CNPF Decision No. 29/2 dated 16.06.2026 and petition No. 2634 dated 09.04.2026

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL COMMISSION OF THE FINANCIAL MARKET Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd., no. 77, Chisinau, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e‑mail: office@cnpf.md

DECISION
22 September 2026 No. 48/7

Regarding the Preliminary Request of OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL, submitted by its representative, Mr. Octavian Cazac, concerning the partial cancellation of the National Financial Market Commission Decision No. 40/1 dated 12.08.2026 relating to the Preliminary Request against the National Financial Market Commission Decision No. 29/2 dated 16.06.2026 with respect to the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2634 dated 09.04.2026, in relation to OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL

On 16.09.2026, within the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF), the Preliminary Request of OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL (creditor), filed by its representative, Mr. Octavian Cazac, was registered (under No. 8362) in which the following is requested:

1. The partial cancellation, as illegal, pursuant to art. 167 para. (1) of the
   Administrative Code, of the National Financial Market Commission Decision No. 40/1 dated 12.08.2026 relating to the Preliminary Request against the National Financial Market Commission Decision No. 29/2 dated 16.06.2026 with respect to the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2634 dated 09.04.2026, in relation to OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL (Decision No. 40/1/2026/Contested Decision) and, namely, in the part where, by amending the CNPF Decision No. 29/2 dated 16.06.2026 with respect to the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2634 dated 09.04.2026, in relation to OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL (Decision No. 29/2/2026), it was found that the penalty clause contained in point 6.1 of the credit (with interest) Contract No. [...] dated 25.02.2020 (Contract) is abusive and it was ordered to forward the action to the court for the declaration of its nullity;

2. Communication to OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL of the complete administrative file
   pertaining to the petition of Mr. [...] (debtor), registered under No. 2634 on 09.04.2026, and the preliminary request filed by him (Preliminary Request).

In fact, it should be noted that on 09.04.2026, within the CNPF, petition No. 2634 was registered from Mr. [...], requesting verification of the clauses of the Contract concluded between him and OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL, the object of which was the granting of a credit in the amount of 30 000.00 EUR.

Following the investigations carried out within the respective administrative procedure, the analysis of the materials and the explanations presented by the participants in the procedure, in view of the applicable normative framework of the contractual legal relationship, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 29/2/2026. According to points 1 and 2 of the operative part of Decision No. 29/2/2026, the CNPF found a violation by the creditor of art. 20 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013 on consumer credit contracts.

Furthermore, the CNPF, by the same Decision, found the abusive nature of the clause contained in point 7.6 of the Contract, which states that “The credit repayment operations and the settlement of the related payments are reflected in the credit account. The debtor assumes the obligation to verify monthly the correctness of the evolution of his credit account, and in case he detects discrepancies in the information presented by the Creditor, to notify in writing the latter within at least 3 days about the circumstances disclosed. Otherwise, the operations recorded in the account will be considered tacitly accepted by the Debtor.”

Not agreeing with the CNPF findings, the debtor filed a Preliminary Request, registered under No. 5854 on 13.07.2026, whereby he requested:

“1. Acceptance of the present preliminary request;
2. Partial cancellation of the CNPF Decision No. 29/2 dated 16.06.2026 – in the part where,
without any reasoning, the request items from the petition registered under No. 2634 dated 09.04.2026, indicated at point 7 of the present request, were implicitly rejected, maintaining the findings of points 1–3 of the operative part of the Decision;
3. Re‑examination of the case and issuance of a motivated administrative act whereby
the CNPF shall rule on each request item, including:
a) finding the illegal and deceptive commercial practice of OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL of retaining in the advance account sums paid by debtors before maturity or above the due rate, violating art. 20 para. (1) of Law No. 202/2013; b) obliging OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL to cease this practice and to modify the payment processing mechanism so that any amount paid by the consumer produces the effect of extinguishing the obligation on the actual date of payment, i.e. it is credited to the principal of the loan with a recalculation of costs; c) obliging OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL to recalculate the loan of the undersigned and the loan portfolio of the consumers affected by the mentioned practice; d) finding the abusive nature of the clauses at points 1.4, 1.5, 6.1, 7.3 lit. c), 4.2, 8.1 lit. d) and 8.1 lit. g) of the Credit Contract No. [...] dated 25.02.2020;
4. Compensation for the damage caused by the nullity of the clauses indicated at
point 3 lit. d), namely the payment in favor of the Debtor of the following sums:
a) 900 euros paid as a release commission of 3% (point 1.4); b) 4 297.25 euros paid as a monthly commission of 0.3% (point 1.4); c) 23 033.47 euros paid as interest (point 1.5); d) 2 095 euros paid as a penalty (point 6.1);
5. Compensation of the material prejudice of 663 euros caused by the retention of
sums paid by the Debtor in advance and the failure to recalculate in accordance with art. 20 of Law No. 202/2013.”.

In response, the CNPF adopted Decision No. 40/1/2026, according to which the Preliminary Request, registered under No. 5854 on 13.07.2026, was partially admitted. At the same time, modifications were made to points 2 and 3 of Decision No. 29/2/2026, namely:

“2. Point 2 and point 3 of CNPF Decision No. 29/2 dated 16.06.2026 concerning the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2634 dated 09.04.2026, in relation to OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL, are amended as follows:
“2. The abusive nature of the clauses in the Credit Contract (with interest) No. [...] dated 25.02.2020, contained in:

1. point 6.1, according to which “For failure to repay the credit on time, the
   Creditor is entitled to calculate, and the Debtor shall pay the Creditor a penalty of 1.00% of the outstanding credit amount, calculated for each day of delay, starting from the first day of arrears until the date of actual payment.”;
2. point 7.6, which states that “The credit repayment operations and the settlement
   of the related payments are reflected in the credit account. The Debtor assumes the obligation to verify monthly the correctness of the evolution of his credit account, and in case he detects discrepancies in the information presented by the Creditor, to notify in writing the latter within at least 3 days about the disclosed circumstances. Otherwise, the operations recorded in the account will be considered tacitly accepted by the Debtor.”;
3. point 8.1 lit. d), in the part that provides the following wording “to allow,
   without any impediment and for the purpose of executing the present Contract, the employees of the Creditor to monitor the activity of the Debtor and to grant access to the business assets owned by the Debtor.”;
4. point 8.1 lit. g) in its entirety.

3. An action is forwarded to the court for the declaration of nullity of the abusive
   clauses indicated in point 2.”.

Subsequently, by CNPF letter No. 06-5/3644 dated 18.08.2026, Decision No. 40/1/2026 was communicated to both the debtor and the creditor.

As a result, the creditor filed, on 16.09.2026, a Preliminary Request, whereby he requests the partial cancellation of the contested Decision, namely:

1. of point 1 of the operative part, in the part where the preliminary request of
   Mr. [...] concerning point 6.1 of the Contract is admitted;
2. of point 2 of the operative part, in the part where, by amending point 2 of
   Decision No. 29/2/2026, the abusive nature of the clause contained in sub‑point 1), i.e. point 6.1 of the Contract, was found;
3. of point 2 of the operative part, in the part where, by amending point 3 of
   Decision No. 29/2/2026, it was ordered to forward to the court an action for the declaration of nullity of the clause mentioned in the preceding line.

In support of the request for the partial cancellation of the contested Decision, the creditor invokes procedural deficiencies and the substantive illegality of Decision No. 40/1/2026.

Analyzing the Preliminary Request in view of the legal provisions applicable to the case, it is concluded that it may be rejected as inadmissible, for the following reasons:

1. Under the law, art. 19 of the Administrative Code provides that “The preliminary
   request is the institution that offers a pre‑litigative solution of 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 to:
   a) the total or partial cancellation of an illegal or null individual administrative act; [...]”.

2. From the content of the aforementioned norms, it is clear that the preliminary
   procedure is a pre‑litigative route made available to the public authority to verify the legality of its own individual administrative act.

3. Accordingly, the preliminary procedure concludes with a decision on the
   preliminary request (response), which reflects the public authority’s assessment of the legality of the contested individual administrative act.

4. In case of disagreement with the response offered by the public authority to the
   preliminary request, the petitioner is entitled to address the administrative court, which will examine the legality of the contested individual administrative act and of the decision on the preliminary request, if such exists.

5. According to art. 10 para. (1) of the Administrative Code, “(1) An individual
   administrative act is any provision, decision or other official measure taken by the public authority to regulate an individual case in the field of public law, with the purpose of producing immediate legal effects, by creating, modifying or extinguishing public law legal relations.”

6. In this regard, the legality of Decision No. 29/2/2026 was subject to prior verification,
   as reflected in Decision No. 40/1/2026, which, pursuant to art. 224 of the Administrative Code, represents the “possible decision on the resolution of the preliminary request”, which is subject to legality control together with the individual administrative act.

7. Considering the factual and legal circumstances presented, it is found that the
   contested Decision cannot constitute the object of examination of a preliminary procedure.

Moreover, the Administrative Code does not provide a distinct procedure for verifying the legality of the decision on the resolution of the preliminary request; the institution of the preliminary request refers strictly to the initial administrative act, and the possibility of introducing a new preliminary request against the response to the preliminary request is, in any case, legally improper.

8. Additionally, it should be noted that the repeated forwarding of preliminary
   requests is regarded as a violation of the principle of legal certainty of legal relations and would impede access to justice within a reasonable term.

9. In context, it should be mentioned that point 4 of the operative part of Decision
   No. 40/1/2026 contains information regarding the exercise of the appeal route, according to which the contestation of the pre‑registered Decision shall be made by filing an action in administrative litigation before the Chisinau Court, Râșcani branch (MD‑2068, Chisinau, Kiev St. 3), within 30 days from the date of communication.

10. In context, it is observed that the creditor also acknowledges the optional nature
    of the present preliminary procedure, considering that, for him, a new preliminary procedure against Decision No. 40/1/2026 is not mandatory (point III of the Preliminary Request).

11. Complementarily, although the Administrative Code allows the rejection of a
    preliminary request as inadmissible, this normative act does not expressly provide the grounds for inadmissibility of a preliminary request.

12. Therefore, the systemic and analogical application of the provisions of the
    Administrative Code governing similar situations is claimed, within the discretionary rights of the public authority.

13. In this sense, it should be noted that the existence of a prior decision on an
    action with the same object and the same parties constitutes a ground for inadmissibility of the action in administrative litigation.

14. Taking into account the nature of the institution of the preliminary request and the
    fact that, in this case, Decision No. 29/2/2026 was subject to verification within a preliminary procedure, concluded with the adoption of Decision No. 40/1/2026, the forwarding of a repeated preliminary request actually represents a repeated challenge of the original administrative act, which is outside any legal framework.

15. Thus, CNPF, in the absence of distinct regulations, opines that the lack of an
    object of examination of a preliminary procedure may be regarded as a ground for the inadmissibility of the Preliminary Request.

Based on the foregoing considerations, 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 on the National Financial Market Commission, art. 19, art. 162 para. (1) and para. (3) and art. 167 para. (3) of the Administrative Code and points 16 and 19 of the Regulation on the organization and functioning of the National Financial Market Commission (Decision CNPF No. 57/11/2022),

THE NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION DECIDES:

1. The Preliminary Request of OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL, submitted by its
   representative, Mr. Octavian Cazac, concerning the partial cancellation of the National Financial Market Commission Decision No. 40/1 dated 12.08.2026 relating to the Preliminary Request against the National Financial Market Commission Decision No. 29/2 dated 16.06.2026 with respect to the petition registered at the National Financial Market Commission under No. 2634 dated 09.04.2026, in relation to OCN “MICROINVEST” SRL (registered at CNPF under No. 8362 on 16.09.2026), is rejected as inadmissible.

2. This Decision may be contested by filing an administrative litigation action
   before the Chisinau Court, Râșcani branch (MD‑2068, Chisinau, Kiev St. 3), within 30 days from the date of its communication.

3. This Decision enters into force on the date of adoption and 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,
CHAIRMAN