MOLDOVA Law and Practice Contributed by: Ina Jimbei, Efrim, Roșca and Associates
12. Appeals 12.1 Basis of Appeal In Moldova, there are two levels of appeal: appeal and recourse (appeal in cassation). All judgments delivered by a court of first instance may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Judgments of the Court of Appeal rendered in its capacity as a court of first instance, and a decision rendered in its capacity as an appellate court, are subject to recourse (appeal in cassation) to the Supreme Court of Justice. Appeal An appeal involves a full review of both facts and law and may be brought on the following grounds. • Insufficient findings of fact – important circumstanc - es for resolving the case have not been fully deter - mined and elucidated by the first-instance court. • Insufficient evidence – circumstances considered established by the first-instance court were not supported by reliable and sufficient evidence. • Contradictory conclusions – the conclusions set out in the judgment are inconsistent with the facts of the case. • Errors in law: (a) substantive law errors – eg, incorrect interpre - tation/application of the law; and (b) procedural law errors – eg, failure to notify par - ties, etc (procedural law errors can be identified and invoked by the Court of Appeal ex officio). Recourse Following the 2023 reform, the Supreme Court of Jus - tice now acts primarily as a cassation court to ensure the uniform application of the law. Recourse is admit - ted only if one of the following grounds exists: • the interpretation of the law in the contested judge - ment (decision) is contrary to the uniform jurispru - dence of the Supreme Court of Justice; • admitting the recourse changes or consolidates Supreme Court of Justice jurisprudence; • a late appeal was wrongly accepted or a timely appeal was wrongly rejected as late; • the judgment or decision affects the rights of per - sons not involved in the proceedings;
• the judgment or decision is arbitrary or based on manifestly unreasonable evaluation of evidence; and • the court was not properly composed or the judg - ment (decision) was rendered in violation of juris - dictional competence.
13. Looking Forward 13.1 Legislative Trends and Other Developments
Private antitrust litigation in the Republic of Moldova remains at an early stage of development, with public enforcement by the Competition Council continuing to be the primary means of enforcing competition law. Consequently, there is only limited judicial practice in civil antitrust damages actions. The most significant expected legislative develop - ment is the transposition of the EU Damages Directive (see 1.2 Recent Developments ) as part of Moldova’s ongoing alignment with the EU acquis. Once imple - mented, the new framework is expected to introduce more detailed rules on disclosure of evidence, limita - tion periods, the evidential effect of infringement deci - sions, the quantification of harm and the passing-on of overcharges, thereby facilitating private enforcement. In the medium term, any increase in private antitrust litigation is likely to arise primarily from follow-on dam - ages claims based on final infringement decisions of the Competition Council rather than standalone actions. Given the relatively small size of the Moldovan market, no particular sector currently dominates pri - vate antitrust litigation. However, if private enforcement becomes more common, disputes are likely to reflect the Competition Council’s enforcement priorities, including digital markets, public procurement, energy, pharmaceuticals and consumer-facing markets. At present, there is no discernible trend towards dominance-based litigation, cross-border claimant strategies or large-scale cartel damages actions. However, further harmonisation with EU competition law is expected to gradually encourage a more active private enforcement culture and an increase in civil antitrust claims.
115 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook