MOLDOVA Law and Practice Contributed by: Ina Jimbei, Efrim, Roșca and Associates
requirements or representative proceedings for private antitrust claims.
within five days, specifying the reasons for their failure to produce the evidence. 6.2 Legal Professional Privilege Moldovan legislation recognises the concept of legal privilege. Accordingly, an attorney cannot be com - pelled to testify in court regarding information received in the course of providing legal assistance, as the law requires such information to remain confidential. The same principle applies to in-house counsel. The obli - gation to maintain professional secrecy is perpetual and not limited in time. 6.3 Leniency and Settlement Agreements Leniency materials are expressly protected from dis - closure under the Competition Law. Article 84 (4) provides that any statement submitted to the Com - petition Council for the purpose of obtaining leniency may not be disclosed or used for purposes other than the enforcement of the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements. In addition, access to such statements is subject to strict limitations, and, upon request, the identity of the leniency applicant remains confidential until the investigation report is communicated. By contrast, Moldovan competition law does not cur - rently provide a comparable settlement procedure or a specific regime governing the protection of settlement submissions. The general rule is that witness testimony is given oral - ly and directly before the court, either in person or via videoconference. The party requesting the hearing of a witness merely indicates the witness’s identification details and the relevance of their testimony, in order for the court to summon them to give oral evidence. However, where there is a risk that the witness will not be able to testify at a later stage, evidence may be preserved prior to the initiation of proceedings through the taking of witness testimony by bailiffs, notaries or other authorised persons, with the statements being recorded in an official minute that may subsequently be used before the court. 7. Witness and Expert Opinions 7.1 Witness Procedure
5. Choice of Jurisdiction 5.1 Rules on Jurisdiction and Applicable Law Private antitrust claims are subject to the general rules on jurisdiction set out in the Civil Procedure Code. As a rule, claims are brought before the competent civil court determined by the defendant’s domicile or regis - tered office, unless the Civil Procedure Code provides otherwise. The applicable substantive law is primarily the Compe - tition Law, supplemented by the relevant provisions of the Civil Code governing civil liability. Procedural mat - ters are governed by the Civil Procedure Code. Where a case involves a foreign element, the applicable law is determined in accordance with the conflict-of-law rules of the Civil Code and any applicable international treaties to which the Republic of Moldova is a party. Each party is responsible for determining which facts they wish to rely on and what evidence they plan to submit. Where a party is unable to obtain relevant evi - dence, it may request the court to order its production. The request for the production of evidence must specify: • the evidence and the circumstances that could be confirmed or disproved by it; • the reasons preventing its acquisition by the party themselves; and • the location of the evidence. The person in possession of the requested evidence must either submit it directly to the court or hand it over to the holder of ruling so that it can be presented in court. However, persons who do not possess the required evidence or are unable to present it within the court-set deadline are obliged to inform the court 6. Disclosure/Discovery 6.1 Disclosure/Discovery Procedure
111 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook