The Republic of Moldova has a relatively modern competition law regime, largely modelled on EU competition law. The principal legislative act is Law No 183 of 11 July 2012 on Competition (the “Competition Law”).

In addition to the Competition Law, the Moldovan competition law framework is supplemented by an extensive body of secondary legislation adopted by the Competition Council. This includes, inter alia:

• regulations and instructions on the assessment of horizontal, vertical and technology transfer agreements;
• the assessment of dominance and abuse of dominance;
• merger control, commitments, leniency and settlement procedures;
• the definition of the relevant market;
• access to the Competition Council’s case file;
• access to confidential information through a data room; and
• the internal organisation and functioning of the Competition Council.

These implementing regulations largely transpose or are closely modelled on the corresponding European Commission Regulations, Guidelines and Notices.

The EU-oriented approach is expressly reflected in the Competition Law itself. Article 3(6) and (7) require the Competition Council and the national courts to apply the Competition Law in accordance with the general principles of EU competition law, the European Convention on Human Rights, the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and other interpretative instruments of the EU institutions.

Private antitrust litigation in the Republic of Moldova remains at an early stage of development. To date, there is no established body of case law concerning standalone or follow-on private actions for damages arising from infringements of competition law. Enforcement of competition rules has been driven predominantly by the Competition Council through public enforcement proceedings, while the related court practice has largely concerned judicial review of the Competition Council’s decisions in administrative proceedings rather than private damages claims between market participants.

The main legislative development is the ongoing transposition of Directive 2014/104/EU (the “EU Damages Directive”), which forms part of Moldova’s broader approximation to the EU acquis. The Competition Council officially launched the transposition process in April 2026 by establishing an inter-institutional working group to prepare the relevant legislative amendments.

The statutory basis for private antitrust claims in the Republic of Moldova is primarily found in Law No 183/2012 on Competition (the “Competition Law”). The Competition Law expressly preserves the right of natural and legal persons to bring civil actions seeking full compensation for damage caused by anti-competitive practices prohibited under the law, irrespective of any administrative sanctions imposed by the Competition Council. A claim for damages may be brought within one year from the date on which the Competition Council’s infringement decision becomes final or is upheld by a final and irrevocable court judgment.

The Competition Law is complemented by the Civil Code, which governs the general conditions for tort liability – including the existence of damage, causation, unlawfulness and fault – and by the Civil Procedure Code, which regulates the procedural aspects of civil litigation. Private antitrust claims are therefore heard by the ordinary civil courts, as the Republic of Moldova does not have specialised competition courts.

The main types of private antitrust claims available under Moldovan law are as follows.

• Actions for damages (general tort claims), seeking full compensation for losses caused by infringements 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 addition to damages, Article 80 of the Competition Law provides a broader range of civil remedies for acts of unfair competition. The court may order:
1. the cessation of the unlawful conduct;
2. the elimination of its consequences;
3. the return of confidential information or documents unlawfully obtained from the claimant; and
4. compensation for the damage suffered.

Pursuant to the specialisation rules applicable within the Moldovan judiciary, there are no specialised competition 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 administrative law, while private antitrust claims, including damages actions, are heard by judges exercising general civil jurisdiction in accordance with the ordinary rules of civil procedure.

Decisions of the Competition Council do not have an immediate binding effect in private antitrust proceedings. Under Article 79 of the Competition Law, a damages claim may be brought only after the Competition 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.

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 proving 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 evidentiary 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 persuasive 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.

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 overcharge would bear the burden of proving that allegation.

Under Article 79(2) of the Competition Law, a claim for damages arising from an infringement of competition law must be brought within one year from the date on which the Competition Council’s infringement decision becomes final. A decision becomes final either because it was not challenged within the statutory time limit or because it has been upheld, in whole or in part, by a final and irrevocable court judgment.

The Competition Council’s decision nevertheless has a decisive impact on the limitation period. Since a damages action may only be brought after the infringement decision has become final, the one-year limitation period begins to run only from the date on which that decision acquires finality.

The duration of private antitrust litigation does not differ from that of other civil proceedings in the Republic of Moldova, as no special procedural rules or expedited timelines apply. In recent years, however, the overall length of civil litigation has increased due to the ongoing judicial vetting and evaluation process, which has resulted in a significant number of judges leaving the judiciary or being removed from office. As a result, first-instance proceedings may take up to three years, while appeal and cassation proceedings may each require a further two to three years, meaning that complex cases can remain pending for six or more years before a final judgment is rendered.

The concept of collective actions is not regulated under Moldovan legislation. However, the Civil Procedure Code provides for procedural co-participation, which allows several plaintiffs and/or defendants to participate jointly in a single proceeding.

Starting 26 June 2026, Law No 80/2025 empowers qualified entities to bring actions on behalf of consumers seeking injunctive or redress measures.

According to Law No 80/2025, actions claiming injunctive measures operate on an opt-out basis, without specific certification criteria for class approval.

Actions seeking redress measures are opt-in, requiring consumers to provide written consent within 30 days from the filing of the claim, but not later than the end of oral proceedings.

Moldovan law does not distinguish between direct and indirect purchasers in the context of private antitrust actions. The Competition Law contains no specific provisions governing the standing, rights or evidentiary rules applicable to indirect purchasers, nor does it provide special rules on the passing-on of overcharges. Accordingly, the general rules on civil liability and standing apply. Any natural or legal person that can demonstrate that it has suffered damage as a result of an infringement of competition law may, in principle, bring a claim for compensation, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 79 of the Competition Law and the general rules of the Civil Code and Civil Procedure Code. Moldova is currently in the process of transposing the EU Damages Directive (see 1.2 Recent Developments), which is expected to introduce specific rules on direct and indirect purchasers. 

Moldovan law does not provide for a class certification procedure or a class action mechanism comparable to those available in some other jurisdictions. Private antitrust claims must generally be brought by the individual natural or legal persons alleging that they have suffered damage as a result of an infringement of competition law.

While the Civil Procedure Code permits procedural joinder of multiple claimants or defendants where their claims or obligations are connected, this does not constitute a collective redress or class action mechanism. Accordingly, there are no special certification requirements or representative proceedings for private antitrust claims.

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 registered office, unless the Civil Procedure Code provides otherwise.

The applicable substantive law is primarily the Competition Law, supplemented by the relevant provisions of the Civil Code governing civil liability. Procedural matters 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 evidence, 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 within five days, specifying the reasons for their failure to produce the evidence.

Moldovan legislation recognises the concept of legal privilege. Accordingly, an attorney cannot be compelled 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 obligation to maintain professional secrecy is perpetual and not limited in time.

Leniency materials are expressly protected from disclosure under the Competition Law. Article 84(4) provides that any statement submitted to the Competition 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 currently provide a comparable settlement procedure or a specific regime governing the protection of settlement submissions.

The general rule is that witness testimony is given orally 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.

The law also allows for cross-examination. Both parties and the judge may ask questions to clarify the witness’s statements.

Expert evidence is admissible in civil proceedings where specialised knowledge is required to establish facts relevant to the case. The parties may request the appointment of an expert, while the court may also order an expert examination ex officio where necessary.

As a rule, the expert or expert institution is chosen by mutual agreement of the parties and formally appointed by the court. In the absence of such agreement, the court appoints the expert. Experts are generally selected from the State Register of Judicial Experts maintained by the Ministry of Justice.

The expert prepares a written report, which is submitted to the court at least five days before the hearing. The report is examined together with the other evidence, and the expert may be summoned to the hearing to clarify or supplement the conclusions and answer questions from the court and the parties.

Damages are assessed in accordance with the general rules of Moldovan civil law. The claimant must prove:

• the existence of the infringement;
• the damage suffered;
• the causal link between the infringement and the damage; and
• where required, the defendant’s fault.

Compensation is intended to restore the claimant to the position they would have been in in the absence of the infringement, and may cover both actual loss (damnum emergens) and loss of profit (lucrum cessans), provided these are adequately proven. There are no specific statutory rules governing the quantification of damages in private antitrust cases.

Exemplary or punitive damages are not available in the Republic of Moldova in private competition law actions. Damages are compensatory and are intended to ensure full reparation for the proven harm, including actual loss, loss of profit and, where the applicable conditions are met, loss of chance.

Any fines imposed by the Competition Council constitute separate public-law sanctions and are not awarded to the claimant.

The “passing-on” defence is not expressly regulated in Moldovan legislation. As there is currently no specific framework for private antitrust damages actions, it remains uncertain whether and how Moldovan courts would apply this defence. In principle, however, the general civil law principle against unjust enrichment suggests that a claimant should not recover losses that have been passed on to third parties. To date, there is no reported case law addressing this issue in the context of competition law.

The Competition Law does not contain specific provisions governing interest on damages. Accordingly, the general rules set out in the Civil Code apply. Default interest accrues from the date on which the infringer receives a formal demand for payment from the injured party. Where no prior demand has been made, interest accrues from the date on which court proceedings are commenced, and continues until payment in full. 

As the debtor in an action for damages arising from an infringement of competition law is an undertaking, the applicable annual rate is the National Bank of Moldova base rate for the relevant half-year, increased by nine percentage points. The relevant base rate is the rate in force on January 1st for the first half of the year and on July 1st for the second half. Interest is calculated on the amount of damages awarded and, as a general rule, is not subject to capitalisation.

Moldovan law does not contain specific provisions on joint and several liability in private antitrust damages actions. Therefore, the general rules of civil liability apply. Where several persons jointly cause damage, they may be held jointly and severally liable in accordance with the Civil Code, allowing the injured party to seek full compensation from any of the persons responsible, subject to their rights of recourse against each other.

There are no specific rules limiting the civil liability of immunity applicants (leniency recipients). Although the Competition Law provides for a leniency programme in relation to administrative fines imposed by the Competition Council, it does not contain provisions limiting the civil liability of immunity applicants towards injured parties. Likewise, there is currently no reported case law addressing this issue.

Moldovan competition law does not contain specific rules governing contribution claims between co-infringers. Such claims are therefore governed by the general rules on tort liability set out in the Civil Code.

Under Article 2023 of the Civil Code, where damage is caused jointly by several persons, they are jointly and severally liable towards the injured party. Consequently, the claimant may recover the full amount of the damages from any of the jointly liable tortfeasors. In the internal relationship between them, Article 2023 further provides that, in recourse proceedings, each participant bears a share of the liability proportionate to its contribution to the unlawful conduct, where such contribution can be determined.

Article 2024 of the Civil Code expressly recognises the right of recourse of a person who has compensated damage caused by another person. A person exercising recourse may recover only the part of the compensation corresponding to the other tortfeasor’s contribution and may not recover the portion attributable to its own contribution to the damage.

Interim injunctive relief is available under the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Code governing interim measures (security for the claim). The Competition Law does not contain any special rules on interim relief in private antitrust actions.

An applicant must demonstrate that the requested measure is necessary to secure the effective enforcement of a future judgment and that, in the absence of such relief, enforcement of the judgment may become impossible or substantially more difficult.

The court may order a range of measures provided by the Civil Procedure Code, including prohibiting certain acts or preserving the existing state of affairs, where appropriate.

An application for interim relief is submitted to the court hearing the case. Under Article 177 of the Civil Procedure Code, the application is generally decided on the day it is filed, without notice to the defendant or the other parties. Where the application is filed together with the statement of claim, it is determined on the day the court admits the claim for examination. If the application is made during a court hearing, it is decided during that hearing, irrespective of the absence of any of the parties.

Moldovan law does not impose a specific duty of full and frank disclosure comparable to that found in some common law jurisdictions.

The Civil Procedure Code also allows the court to require the applicant to provide counter-security where appropriate. If the claim is ultimately dismissed, the respondent may seek compensation for the damage caused by the interim measure in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code.

The main forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) available in Moldova are as follows.

• Conciliation: which is typically organised by the parties themselves or facilitated by their attorneys. Such conciliation may take place before or during the trial.
• Mediation: in recent years, mediation has gained increasing attention. Mediation is regulated by the Law on Mediation 137/2015.
• Arbitration: institutional arbitration remains a widely used ADR mechanism, particularly in cases involving a foreign party or a professional entity. It is regulated by the Law on Arbitration and the Law on International Commercial Arbitration, both in force since 2008.

As a general rule, the use of ADR is voluntary and is not a mandatory precondition to commencing court proceedings.

Starting from 12 August 2026, the new Law on Mediation requires parties to participate in at least one mediation session before commencing court proceedings in certain categories of civil disputes, except where a public authority is a party. The requirement applies to specified claims with a value not exceeding 50 average monthly salaries, including debt recovery, damages, defamation, property division, certain contractual disputes and insolvency proceedings, subject to statutory exceptions.

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is legally admissible in Moldova but lacks specific regulations in the Civil Procedure Code. However, recent Supreme Court of Justice case law confirms that court fees may be paid by a non-party, and that rejecting a filing on that basis constitutes excessive formalism.

In 2025, for the first time, specific provisions on TPLF were adopted in Law No 80/2025 on Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers, which entered into force on 26 June 2026 (hereinafter, “Law No 80/2025”).

According to Article 10 of Law No 80/2025, a representative action seeking remedial measures may be funded by a third party in accordance with Law No 1420/2002 on Philanthropy and Sponsorship.

The law sets out the following conditions for third-party funding:

• there must be no conflict of interest between the funder and the parties involved in the action;
• the funder must not unduly influence the decisions made in the proceedings, including settlement decisions, so as to prejudice the collective interests of the consumers concerned; and
• the representative action must not be brought against a defendant who is a competitor of, or in a dependent relationship with, the funder.

These safeguards are designed to ensure that third-party funding supports access to justice without compromising the integrity of the proceedings or the interests of the consumers represented.

In Moldova, the costs of litigation include the state fee, stamp duty, and other costs related to the examination of the case, such as expert fees, legal assistance fees, and costs of serving the defendant.

The Civil Procedure Code provides that the unsuccessful party may be ordered to reimburse the prevailing party for the costs of the proceedings, upon the latter’s request. The party seeking recovery must substantiate the claimed costs with appropriate evidence.

When awarding costs, the court considers the following factors:

• reality – whether the expenses were actually incurred (invoices, service contracts);
• necessity – whether the expenses were necessary for resolving the case (eg, costs for evidence-gathering that directly contributed to the case outcome); and
• reasonableness – whether the amount is proportionate to the nature of the cost.

The Civil Procedure Code does not expressly provide for security for costs. Although a court can grant interim measures in favour of the defendant to secure enforcement of a judgment regarding the compensation of court costs from the unsuccessful party, there is no practice in Moldova in which such requests for interim measures have been admitted.

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 circumstances for resolving the case have not been fully determined 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:
1. substantive law errors – eg, incorrect interpretation/application of the law; and
2. procedural law errors – eg, failure to notify parties, 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 Justice now acts primarily as a cassation court to ensure the uniform application of the law. Recourse is admitted only if one of the following grounds exists:

• the interpretation of the law in the contested judgement (decision) is contrary to the uniform jurisprudence 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 persons 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 judgment (decision) was rendered in violation of jurisdictional competence.

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 development 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 implemented, the new framework is expected to introduce more detailed rules on disclosure of evidence, limitation periods, the evidential effect of infringement decisions, 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 damages 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 private 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.