MOLDOVA Law and Practice Contributed by: Ina Jimbei, Efrim, Roșca and Associates
• Actions for damages (general tort claims), seeking full compensation for losses caused by infringe - ments of the Competition Law, including anti- competitive agreements and abuse of dominance: these claims are compensatory in nature and are governed by both the Competition Law and the general rules on civil liability under the Civil Code. • Civil actions relating to unfair competition: in addi - tion to damages, Article 80 of the Competition Law provides a broader range of civil remedies for acts of unfair competition. The court may order: (a) the cessation of the unlawful conduct; (b) the elimination of its consequences; (c) the return of confidential information or docu - ments unlawfully obtained from the claimant; and (d) compensation for the damage suffered. 2.2 Courts Pursuant to the specialisation rules applicable within the Moldovan judiciary, there are no specialised com - petition courts or judges. However, competition cases are allocated according to the nature of the dispute. Actions challenging decisions of the Competition Council are heard by judges specialised in administra - tive law, while private antitrust claims, including dam - ages actions, are heard by judges exercising general civil jurisdiction in accordance with the ordinary rules of civil procedure. 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities Decisions of the Competition Council do not have an immediate binding effect in private antitrust pro - ceedings. Under Article 79 of the Competition Law, a damages claim may be brought only after the Com - petition Council’s infringement decision has become final, either because it was not challenged within the statutory time limit or because it has been upheld by a final and irrevocable court judgment. The Competition Council has no formal procedural role in private antitrust proceedings before the civil courts. Its role is limited to investigating and deciding administrative competition cases in accordance with the Competition Law. Decisions of foreign national competition authorities have no binding effect on Moldovan courts. They may,
however, be relied upon by the parties as persuasive authority or as evidence, where relevant, but the courts are under no obligation to follow them. 2.4 Proof In private antitrust proceedings, the general rules of evidence under the Civil Procedure Code apply. As a general principle, each party bears the burden of prov - ing the facts on which it relies in support of its claims or defences. Accordingly, the claimant must prove: • the existence of the infringement (where required); • the damage suffered; • the causal link between the infringement and the damage; and • the amount of the loss claimed. Moldovan law does not provide for any specific evi - dentiary presumptions applicable to private antitrust actions. As regards the probative value of Competition Council decisions, a final infringement decision constitutes the necessary legal basis for bringing a damages claim under Article 79 of the Competition Law. While the law does not expressly provide that such decisions are binding on civil courts as to the existence of the infringement, in practice they constitute highly per - suasive evidence and form the basis for follow-on damages actions. The applicable standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard. The court assesses the evidence freely, based on its own conviction formed after examining all the evidence presented by the parties, in accordance with the principles set out in the Civil Procedure Code. 2.5 Pass-On Defence Moldovan law does not expressly recognise the pass- on defence and contains no specific rules governing its application in private antitrust actions. Accordingly, the general rules on burden of proof under the Civil Procedure Code would apply. A party relying on the fact that the claimant passed on the alleged over - charge would bear the burden of proving that allega - tion.
109 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook