Moldova follows a civil law tradition grounded in codified statutes. In civil and commercial matters, courts primarily rely on the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the Administrative Code, with case law used for guidance rather than as a formal source of precedent. However, following the reform of the recourse in 2023, the role of judicial precedent has increased, as judgments or decisions that contradict the established practice of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) may be overturned.

Civil and commercial cases generally follow an adversarial model, whereas administrative proceedings are conducted under an inquisitorial system.

The proceedings involve both written submissions and oral argument; the case is examined in a written procedure only in specific cases.

Justice in Moldova is administered by the following courts:

• the Supreme Court of Justice;
• three Courts of Appeal (North, Centre and South); and
• 14 courts of first instance.

The Moldovan courts are courts of general jurisdiction and are not specialised by subject matter. However, within these courts, judges are specialised and focus on specific areas of law, such as administrative disputes, civil cases, insolvency proceedings, criminal cases and anti-corruption cases.

All judgments delivered by a court of first instance may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Judgments of a Court of Appeal rendered in its capacity as a court of first instance, and decisions rendered in its capacity as an appellate court, are subject to recourse (appeal in cassation) to the SCJ.

Cases are heard by:

• one judge or by a panel of three judges in the courts of first instance;
• a panel of three judges in the Courts of Appeal; and
• a panel of three, five or nine judges in the SCJ.

In the Republic of Moldova, court hearings are generally public. However, the court may order a closed session in specific situations, provided the restriction pursues a legitimate aim and is necessary and proportionate in line with ECtHR practice.

A case may be heard in a closed session in order to:

• prevent the disclosure of intimate details of someone’s private life;
• protect a person’s honour, dignity or professional reputation; or
• safeguard public order, morality or the legitimate interests of the parties.

The hearing may be closed for the entire case or only for certain procedural acts. Participants and any other persons present are warned of liability for disclosing confidential information.

Even in such cases, judgments/decisions are pronounced publicly. Only the participants to the proceedings have access to the case files.

Individuals may appear in person or be represented by an attorney or trainee attorney.

To be represented by an attorney/trainee attorney, the client either signs a mandate or issues a power of attorney that, in addition to granting representation in court, expressly authorises the attorney to sign the mandate on the client’s behalf. Natural persons can also be represented by their spouse, parents or other family members if such persons are licensed in law and are acting based on a notarised power of attorney. Proceedings involving legal entities are conducted before the courts by their governing bodies, as well as by other authorised employees of the legal entity, or by attorneys/trainee attorneys.

The power of representation in courts grants the representative the right to perform all procedural acts on behalf of the represented person, except those that must be expressly specified, such as the right to sign the statement of claim and file it with the court, to appeal, to waive all or part of the claims in an action, etc.

Foreign attorneys cannot represent clients before courts. They may only assist a Moldovan attorney when the client’s interests require it. In 2025, a new law was adopted allowing lawyers from the EU/EEA and Switzerland to practise in Moldova, but only after Moldova joins the EU.

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is legally admissible in Moldova but lacks specific regulations in the CPC. However, recent SCJ case law confirms that court fees may be paid by a non-party, and rejecting a filing on that basis amounts to 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 will enter into force on 26 June 2026.

Since it is not generally regulated by law, TPLF is available in any type of case. However, TPLF is expressly permitted in consumer representative actions (Law No 80/2025).

As there is no general statutory prohibition, TPLF may be available to both the plaintiff and the defendant. In consumer representative actions (Law No 80/2025), the statute expressly contemplates funding for the plaintiff and does not provide a regime for the defendant.

There are no statutory minimum or maximum amounts for TPLF.

Under Article 21 of Law No 80/2025, the qualified entities must secure sufficient resources for the proceedings and are exempt from paying court fees. Accordingly, they would be liable only for other procedural expenses and the opposing party’s legal costs, unless the funding agreement provides otherwise. Outside the scope of Law No 80/2025, funding agreements are governed by general contract law.

Article 64(13) of the Statute of the Attorneys’ Profession provides that the attorney is entitled to request and obtain a success fee, in addition to an hourly or fixed fee, on a complementary basis. The success fee consists of a fixed or variable amount set for the achievement of a particular result by the attorney. In criminal cases, a success fee may be charged only in relation to the civil aspect of the case. The success fee may be agreed upon together with the hourly or fixed fee.

A success fee cannot be recovered from the person who loses the case.

There are no statutory time limits for obtaining TPLF in Moldova.

Generally, parties are not required to comply with certain pre-action conduct obligations prior to initiating judicial proceedings. However, certain pre-action conduct obligations can be imposed by special laws or contract. Such obligations generally consist of attempting a prior settlement through extrajudicial means.

Pre-action conduct is imposed by law in specific areas, including administrative litigation, labour disputes and defamation cases Failure to comply with pre-action procedures results in the restitution of the statement of claim.

When the pre-action procedure is set by law, a specific time limit is provided for the defendant to respond (eg, 15 days in administrative cases, or longer if a higher authority exists; ten days in labour disputes, etc). If the defendant fails to respond within the time limit or refuses the request, the plaintiff may proceed to court.

When the pre-action procedure is set by contract, parties may also set a time limit for reply.

The right to bring a civil claim is subject to statutes of limitations, which are divided into general and special terms, depending on the nature of the claim and the rights invoked.

The general limitation period applicable to civil claims is three years. Special limitation periods apply to certain categories of claims expressly indicated in the law.

The commencement of the limitation period is triggered when the person knew or ought to have known of the violation of their right. The law also provides for certain situations when the statute of limitations is considered suspended or interrupted.

In administrative litigation, claims must generally be filed within 30 days of notification of the administrative act (if no pre-action is required) or of the decision on a pre-action request. If information about appeal rights is missing or incorrect, the claim can be filed within one year. Some types of actions have no limitation period, such as actions for the annulment of normative administrative acts.

The jurisdictional requirements for a defendant to be subject to suit depend on the type of case and the connection to the country. In cases with foreign elements, Moldovan courts may have exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction.

The courts have exclusive jurisdiction when:

• the action concerns immovable property located in Moldova;
• the claim arises from a transport contract where the carrier or points of departure/arrival are in Moldova;
• the case aims to declare insolvency or other judicial procedures regarding payment cessation of a foreign company with its registered office in Moldova; or
• in cases of divorce, annulment or nullity of marriage, and other disputes between spouses (except concerning foreign immovables), when both spouses are domiciled in Moldova or at least one is a Moldovan citizen or stateless, etc.

The courts have non-exclusive jurisdiction when:

• the defendant owns property in Moldova;
• a contract must be performed, in whole or in part, in Moldova; or
• the insured property or the place of the insured risk is in Moldova, etc.

Ignoring exclusive jurisdiction is a ground for refusing recognition of a foreign judgment.

The initial complaint shall comprise:

• the name of the court to which it is addressed;
• the identification data of the parties;
• the description of the violation or threat of violation of the plaintiff’s rights, freedoms or legitimate interests;
• the claims and their factual and legal grounds;
• the list of the evidence supporting the claim;
• the value of the claim, if it can be assessed;
• a reference to the observance of pre-action conduct if required by law or by contract between the parties; and
• the signature of the plaintiff or of their representatives.

The initial complaint shall be accompanied by supporting documents, including:

• proof of payment of the court fee and/or stamp duty;
• the empowering document;
• the documents that substantiate the factual and legal grounds of the claim; and
• where applicable, the proof of compliance with the pre-action conduct.

The plaintiff can amend the grounds (legal or factual basis) and the object of the claim (eg, request resolution instead of enforcement) only in the preparatory stage. Any amendment made after the preparatory stage is considered a new claim, which can be filed separately.

The evidence shall be submitted with the statement of claim or within the deadline set by the court during the preparatory stage. Submission of evidence after this time limit is allowed only if the party proves that timely submission was impossible.

The service of the procedural documents is the responsibility of the court.

The statement of claim and other procedural documents are served to the participants against signature in the following ways:

• by post with registered letter and with the notice of receipt;
• through the bailiff’s office;
• at the electronic address indicated in the statement of claim/defence or registered in the Integrated File Management Programme;
• through judicial delegation; or
• by any other means that ensures the confirmation of its receipt.

If the plaintiff proves that they were unable to provide the defendant’s address, service is made publicly in the press or in a local newspaper.

The persons residing or domiciled abroad with a known address are served by post with a registered letter and with the notice of receipt. If a foreign plaintiff or defendant files the statement of claim or defence through a representative, it shall indicate the address in Moldova where court communications will be sent.

The defendant’s failure to respond to a lawsuit does not impede the continuation of the proceedings, provided they were legally summoned. If the defendant does not submit the statement of defence and supporting evidence within the time limit established by the court, the court retains the authority to proceed with the examination of the case based on the materials available in the case file.

If a party is unable to attend a court hearing, they are obliged to communicate the reasons for their absence to the court. Should the defendant, having been legally summoned, not appear and not provide a justified explanation for their absence, or should such reasons be deemed ungrounded by the court, the proceedings continue in their absence.

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

From 26 June 2026, Law No 80/2025 will empower qualified entities to bring actions on behalf of consumers seeking redress measures (compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, termination of the contract or refund of the value of the product/service) or seeking cease measures (cessation of a commercial practice). Actions claiming cease 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 filling of the claim, but no later than the end of oral proceedings.

There is no legal requirement to provide the client with a cost estimate for potential litigation. In practice, attorneys often inform clients of the court fee and stamp duty, as well as the potential costs associated with the use of procedural remedies.       

Parties may file the following interim applications/motions before the substantive hearing:

• procedural interim applications (eg, striking out a claim, termination of the proceedings, or raising an objection to the action being time barred); or
• substantive interim applications (interim protective measures such as freezing orders, prohibiting certain acts, etc).

Applications for interim protective measures may be submitted at any stage of the proceedings until the judgment becomes final.

In certain cases expressly provided by law, the interim protective measures may even be requested before the main claim is filed (eg, for the preservation of evidence in intellectual property disputes or matters involving freedom of expression), provided that the action on the merits is filed within a short period thereafter.

Interim applications cannot be filed for case management issues.

Moldova has no “early/summary judgment” mechanism. However, at the preparatory stage, the parties may apply for dismissal of the claim as time-barred, for termination of the proceedings or for the claim to be struck from the docket.

The grounds for termination of the proceedings and for striking the claim from the docket are exhaustively provided by law and generally relate to procedural deficiencies attributable to the plaintiff. Hence, such applications are decided by court ruling, without reaching the merits.

Dispositive motions are not available in Moldova.

Interested third parties may join the proceedings as third parties either with or without an independent claim.

A third party with an independent claim joins by filing a statement of claim directed against the plaintiff or both parties, asserting rights to the subject matter of the action (for example, in a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a property, a third party may claim that the property actually belongs to it).

A third party without an independent claim may join by its own application, at the request of a party or ex officio by the court, when the judgment could affect its legal relationship with one of the parties (for example, in a dispute between a client and a company for damages caused, the employee may join as a third party).

Security for the defendant’s costs is not expressly regulated by the CPC. 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 losing party, there is no consolidated practice in this regard.

The court’s examination of interim applications/motions does not involve separate costs. However, enforcing the court ruling granting interim protective measures does incur enforcement costs. In such cases, the party requesting the measures initially bears the costs, but the losing party is later generally ordered to reimburse the winning party’s legal costs.

The court shall decide on a request for interim protective measures on the same day such request is submitted. If the request for interim measures is submitted together with the initial claim, the court shall consider it when issuing the order on the admissibility of the claim for examination.

The collection and presentation of evidence are carried out by the parties and other procedural parties, during the preparatory stage of the proceeding within the time limit set by the court. However, at their request, the court is obliged to assist in gathering and presenting necessary evidence if difficulties arise (discovery).

Discovery is limited to the production of documents, and does not cover the testimony of witnesses. As regards witness evidence, a party must file a motion to hear a witness, and such motion must identify the witness, indicate the facts to be proved, and justify the relevance of the testimony. If the court considers the testimony to be relevant, necessary and admissible, it will issue a summons for the witness to appear at the hearing. Witnesses may refuse to testify only in cases strictly provided for by law.

The court ensures that the parties do not abuse their rights – for example, by requesting evidence for circumstances that have already been proven or that are not the subject of the trial.

Moldovan law allows evidence to be obtained from third parties. If a document is held by a public authority, organisation or any other person or entity, the court may, upon a party’s request, order its submission.

Failure to comply with such a ruling may result in a fine ranging from approximately EUR50 to EUR127.

Each party should determine the facts upon which they wish to rely and the evidence they plan to submit, and, if additional evidence is needed, should make the appropriate requests to the court.

The request to secure the evidence must specify:

• the evidence and the circumstances that could be confirmed or disproved by it;
• the reasons preventing its acquisition by themselves; and
• the location of the evidence.

The person in possession of the requested evidence shall 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 deadline set by the court are obliged to inform the court within five days, specifying the reasons for their failure to produce the evidence.

While Moldovan law provides for discovery mechanisms, there are also alternative methods, such as:

• judicial delegation; and
• the securing (preservation) of evidence.

For instance, if evidence must be collected or judicial documents served in another district, the court shall issue a ruling delegating these procedural acts to the relevant court.

There is also the possibility of securing evidence to prevent the loss or future impossibility of presenting evidence useful for the case.

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.

Other than the provisions set out in 5.1 Discovery and Civil Cases and 5.5 Legal Privilege, no additional rules exist that allow a party to refuse disclosure of a document.

In Moldova, what common law systems call “injunctive relief” corresponds to interim protective measures, which are intended to ensure that the court’s final judgment can be effectively enforced. The applicant should show:

• that the claim is prima facie well-founded;
• a specific risk (eg, asset dissipation);
• proportionality; and
• a link between the requested measure and the claim.

The parties can request the following types of interim protective measures:

• the seizure of bank accounts and goods;
• prohibition of the defendant and other persons committing certain acts;
• suspension of the sale of the seized assets concerned; and
• suspension of the forced execution of goods, based on an enforceable document.

At a party’s request, the court can apply other forms of interim protective measures if there is a risk that the defendant may alienate his or her assets and if the non-application of the relief would make future execution of the judgment impossible.

One interim protective measure can be substituted for another. All such measures are granted by the court exclusively upon a party’s request.

Injunctions to prevent parallel proceedings in another jurisdiction are not recognised under Moldovan law.

The court shall order interim protective measures on the same day it receives the request, regardless of the urgency of the matter.

If the request for interim protective measures is filed with the claim, the court decides on it when ruling on the claim’s admissibility. The ruling is enforceable immediately but may be appealed within 15 days. The successful party must promptly present the ruling to the bailiff for execution immediately after it is issued.

Interim protective measures are obtained on an ex parte basis and the court’s decision is based only on grounds and evidence submitted by the plaintiff. The parties are generally not notified, and no opinions from the defendant are requested.

However, if the request is submitted during the trial hearing and the defendant is present, or in administrative proceedings, the defendant may be given the opportunity to argue against the request.

The court might order, at the defendant’s request, the payment by the plaintiff of a bail covering the possible damages incurred by the defendant as a result of the application of that interim protective measure. If the bail is not deposited within the term, the interim protective measure is cancelled.

If the judgment regarding the rejection of the plaintiff’s claims becomes irrevocable, the defendant is entitled to bring a claim against the plaintiff for compensation for the damages caused by the interim protective measure. When the defendant fails to bring a claim within two months, that plaintiff is entitled to request the return of the bail deposited.

The Moldovan courts have jurisdiction only over assets located in Moldova. Therefore, interim protective measures cannot be granted by Moldovan courts against worldwide assets.

Interim protective measures cannot be granted against third parties. However, when the defendant has conveyed his or her assets to third parties, the interim protective measure can be ordered over such assets as well. For instance, if the goods possessed by the defendant are not enough, interim protective measures shall be ordered over the defendant’s assets held by third parties.

A ruling for an interim protective measure is enforced immediately by the bailiff, without notifying the defendant. The bailiff applies the seizure over the assets indicated in the ruling and makes the necessary entries in the relevant public registers. Therefore, there is little chance of the defendant disobeying such a ruling.

However, if the defendant nevertheless sells or disposes of an asset under seizure, such an act is null and void. Moreover, the defendant may be held liable under contravention or criminal law.

Civil proceedings involve both written and oral elements:

• the initiation stage is written;
• the preparatory stage combines written exchanges and, if necessary, a hearing for clarifying procedural issues;
• the debate stage is oral, including the examination of evidences, oral arguments, etc, while the pleadings are held both orally and in writing; and
• the final reply is oral, and is a short statement against the other party’s pleadings.

The case is examined in a written procedure only in specific cases expressly provided by law. However, even in such cases, the court may order an oral hearing if it deems it necessary.

In more complex cases, the court may summon the parties to a hearing for case management purposes, particularly to address issues such as joining additional parties or determining the scope of evidence.

Interim motions or applications are examined differently. Urgent matters, such as the application of interim protective measures, are handled without summoning the parties to a hearing. The objection of the action being time barred is examined in the court hearing, but the legally summoned participants’ failure to appear does not prevent the examination of the application. In contrast, applications for the termination of the proceeding or for striking a claim from the docket are examined in a hearing with the participation of the parties.

Jury trials are not available in civil cases in Moldova.

The evidence must be submitted within the time limits set by the court in the preparatory stage. Evidence may only be considered if it is relevant to the issues in dispute, legally obtained and not inadmissible by law. For instance, evidence obtained in violation of the law – such as by misleading a party to the proceedings, signing a document by an unauthorised person, or other illegal actions – is considered inadmissible.

The court decides on the admissibility of evidence, and parties may object to evidence that is late, irrelevant or unlawful.

Expert testimony is permitted at trial. The parties can request the appointment of an expert to clarify points requiring special knowledge. The expert must be registered in the State Register of Judicial Experts.

The expert prepares a written report, which is submitted to the court at least five days before the hearing. The report is examined in court alongside other evidence, and the expert may be asked questions to clarify or supplement their conclusions.

The judge may order an expert examination ex officio only in the following cases expressly provided by law:

• when the court cannot ascertain the authenticity of a document, after requesting confirmation from the relevant authorities or comparing the person’s handwriting or signature (Article 140(4) of the CPC); or
• when ordering protective judicial measures, etc.

Court hearings are generally public, but the court may order a closed hearing in specific situations. Only the participants to the proceedings have access to the transcripts of the hearings.

Judges play a directive role in civil litigation (Article 9 of the CPC). In administrative cases, the court has an active role: it examines the facts ex officio, and is not bound by the parties’ submissions or requests for evidence.

After trial, the court retires to deliberate. In ordinary cases, the judgment is pronounced immediately, while in complex cases, deliberation may be postponed up to 15 days.

Following deliberation, only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced immediately. The reasoned judgment is issued within 45 working days.

In general, there is no statutory timeframe for courts to examine a case. Instead, courts must comply with the reasonable time requirement in line with ECtHR case law. Special laws may provide specific terms or priority terms for the examination of certain disputes, such as labour disputes or administrative litigation.

In practice, however, the duration of proceedings also depends on administrative factors, such as the judge’s caseload and the time of year the claim is filed: August is affected by national holidays and judges’ annual leave, while December and January are slowed by winter holidays. In addition, Moldova is currently undergoing a vetting process, which has led to a temporary reduction in the number of sitting judges.

At first instance, due to the large number of pending cases, a civil dispute may be resolved within approximately one or two years, followed by 12 months for appeal and, if applicable, another 12 months for cassation before the SCJ.

The law provides a mechanism for acceleration of the procedure in cases where there is a danger of breaching the reasonable term.       

A settlement between the parties may be reached either by direct agreement or through mediation. The settlement may be extrajudicial (concluded outside court proceedings) or judicial (concluded within the proceedings).

An extrajudicial settlement does not generally require court approval. However, if one party fails to voluntarily perform its obligations under such an agreement, court intervention may become necessary to obtain an enforceable title. In practice, this procedure can be time-consuming. Hence, the parties may authenticate the settlement before a notary and have it invested with an enforcement clause. In this case, no court approval is required, as a notarial deed bearing the enforcement formula constitutes an enforceable title from the date the obligation becomes due or the date indicated in the contract.

A judicial settlement may be reached at any stage of the trial, including on appeal. If the parties express their intention to settle but require more time to finalise the settlement, the court – upon the parties’ joint request – may adjourn the hearing to a date indicated by the parties (Article 191(1)(b) of the CPC). When the parties opt for mediation, the court is obliged to suspend the proceedings (Article 260(1)(f) of the CPC).

Once a judicial settlement is reached, court approval is required. By approving it, the court terminates the lawsuit.

A judicial settlement or an extrajudicial settlement submitted to the court for approval cannot remain confidential. When approving the settlement, the court issues a ruling describing the key terms of the settlement. Given that all rulings are published on the court’s website, the settlement conditions will become publicly known.

In contrast, extrajudicial settlements authenticated by a notary and invested with an enforcement clause allow the parties to maintain confidentiality.

In practice, parties sometimes adopt a workaround to preserve confidentiality: the judicial settlement may stipulate that the plaintiff will withdraw the action once the defendant voluntarily fulfils all obligations under the settlement. In this way, the case ends by withdrawal of the claim, rather than by court-approved settlement, keeping the settlement terms private.

If a party fails to voluntarily perform its obligations under a judicial settlement, the same court that issued the approval ruling may, upon request, issue an enforcement title, which is then presented to the bailiff.

If the settlement is extrajudicial and has been invested with a notarial enforcement clause, it already constitutes an enforceable title. If the settlement is extrajudicial and lacks a notarial enforcement clause, it must be approved by the competent court. Following approval, the court will issue an enforcement title. If the court refuses to approve an extrajudicial settlement that lacks a notarial enforcement clause, the creditor may initiate a claim under the general rules for non-performance of the obligations.

A judicial settlement can be set aside during the court’s approval and case termination process. The court may refuse the approval either ex officio or at the request of a participant. The main grounds for refusal include that the settlement:

• violates mandatory legal provisions, public order or good morals;
• violates the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of a person, society or the state;
• concerns rights and obligations that the parties cannot freely dispose of by settlement;
• is manifestly unfair; or
• infringes the rights of third parties not involved in the settlement or mediation process, etc.

The court’s approval ruling may be challenged by recourse within 15 days from the date of communication, invoking one of the grounds mentioned above.

An extrajudicial settlement that lacks a notarial enforcement clause can be set aside during the court’s approval process. The debtor may oppose approval using the same grounds listed above. The court’s approval ruling may be challenged by recourse within 15 days.

An extrajudicial settlement invested with an enforcement clause can be set aside through a regular civil action against the creditor.

Besides interim protective measures, which may be admitted at any stage of the process until the stage where the court decision becomes final, remedies are granted only through one final decision.

Depending on the nature of the claim, awards can take the form of monetary compensation, specific performance, declaratory judgments, confirming rights or legal relations and restitution.

The main principle in liability claims is that of full reparation of damages.

Damages can be:

• pecuniary – ie, expenses incurred or to be incurred by the injured person to restore the infringed right or legally recognised interest, the destruction or deterioration of his or her property (actual damage), as well as the profit lost as a result of the infringement of the right or legally recognised interest (lost profit); or
• non-pecuniary – ie, physical and psychological suffering, the diminution of quality of life, and biological damage.

Under the Civil Code, a creditor may claim legal interest for delay. Special laws or contracts may provide for penalties. Depending on the penalty clause type, the creditor can claim:

• damages in addition to the penalty (inclusive);
• either damages or the penalty (alternative);
• damages exceeding the penalty (punitive); or
• only the penalty (exclusive).

Punitive damages in the common law sense are generally not available, and damages must be proportionate and justifiable.

The successful party may claim pre-judgment interest for the period from the submission of the statement of claim until the date of the judgment. Typically, the interest is requested in the initial claim, and a recalculation may be submitted closer to judgment to reflect the updated period.

Within the enforcement procedure, the bailiff, at the creditor’s request, calculates and collects interest for the period between the enforcement title and the actual execution of the obligation.

No specific statutory limits apply to pre- or post-judgment interest, apart from the three-year limitation for accrued interest.

If the judgment is not voluntarily executed, the party may submit a request to the same court that issued the judgment for the issuance of an enforcement title. The creditor then files the enforcement title with the bailiff.

In certain cases (reinstatement to the workplace and payment of the salary for the entire period of forced absence from work; compensation for damages caused to the state, etc), the court itself transmits the enforcement title directly to the bailiff. The enforceable title may be presented for enforcement within three years from the date the underlying court judgment becomes final.

Foreign judgments are recognised and enforced according to the international treaties to which Moldova is a party, or on the principle of reciprocity.

A foreign judgment can be duly recognised and enforced within three years from the date the judgment is considered final. The request shall be filed to the court in whose territorial jurisdiction the enforced execution shall be performed.

The request for the recognition and enforceability of the judgment shall be examined in a court hearing, and that court can order the recognition of the judgment or its refusal. A refusal is subject to appeal.

The judicial review system comprises two levels of appeal: appeal and recourse (appeal in cassation).

As a general rule, judgments of first-instance courts may be challenged by both appeal and recourse. However, there are certain exceptions. For instance, small claims cases (up to ten times the average monthly salary, which is MDL16,100 in 2025) may be challenged only by appeal, while judgments of the Courts of Appeal acting as courts of first instance may be challenged only by recourse.

Appeals are submitted to the competent Court of Appeal, while recourse is examined by the SCJ.

Appeal

The appeal may be filed if one of the following grounds exists.

• 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; or
2. procedural law errors – eg, failure to notify parties. Procedural law errors can be identified and invoked by the Court of Appeal ex officio.

The appeal must meet the conditions set out in Articles 364–365 of the CPC. For example, a stamp duty of MDL200 (EUR10) and a state fee amounting to 85% of the fee paid at first instance must be paid.

Appeals are not subject to a preliminary admissibility screening as in the case of recourses; however, within ten days from the allocation of the appeal, the panel verifies whether it meets the procedural legal requirements (eg, state taxes, filing time limit, persons entitled to appeal). If deficiencies are identified, the court issues a ruling either setting a time limit for their remedy (remediable deficiencies) or returning the appeal without examination (deficiencies not remedied in time or impossible to remedy).

Recourse

Following the 2023 reform, the SCJ 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 SCJ;
• admitting the recourse changes or consolidates SCJ jurisprudence;
• a late appeal was wrongly accepted or a timely appeal was wrongly rejected as being 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; or
• the court was not properly composed or the judgment (decision) was rendered in violation of jurisdictional competence.

Recourses must comply with the conditions set out in Article 437 of the CPC. For example, a stamp duty of MDL200 (EUR10) and a state fee amounting to 70% of the fee paid at first instance must be paid.

Recourses are first examined at the admissibility stage by a panel of three judges. Only those recourses that meet one of the above legal grounds and are not inadmissible for other reasons (Article 433 of the CPC) are granted examination on the merits. Recourses are examined on the merits by a panel of three, five or nine judges.

The 2023 reform significantly narrowed access to cassation, resulting in a large number of inadmissibility rulings. The reform raised the standards for reasoning a recourse, requiring the party filing the recourse to refer to a specific legal ground and substantiate it in light of the factual and legal circumstances of the case, clearly identifying the errors committed by the Court of Appeal.

Persons Entitled to Appeal

Appeal

According to Article 360 of the CPC, an appeal may be filed by:

• the parties (including co-parties), either personally or through a representative;
• other participants in the case, exhaustively listed in Article 55 of the CPC, either personally or through a representative; and
• a witness, expert, specialist or interpreter, but only regarding the reimbursement of court-related expenses owed to them.

Recourse

According to Article 430 of the CPC, a recourse may be filed by:

• the parties (including co-parties), either personally or through a representative;
• other participants in the case (Article 55 of the CPC), either personally or through a representative; and
• persons who were not involved in the proceedings, but whose rights or legitimate interests were affected by the judgment (as a result of the 2023 reform).

Appeal

The time limit for filing an appeal is 30 days from the date the judgment’s operative part is pronounced. The time limit may be restored upon a justified request if the delay is considered excusable.

The appeal is initially submitted without reasoning, and must indicate the court, the appellant’s details, the contested judgment and the relief sought (cancellation, modification, re-examination). Although the appeal is addressed to the Court of Appeal, it must be submitted to the first-instance court (physically, by email, or by other means).

Once an appeal is filed, the first-instance court has 45 working days to prepare the reasoned judgment. After the reasoned judgment is communicated, the appellant may submit a reasoned appeal to the Court of Appeal, either within 30 days for administrative disputes, or within the time limit set by the Court of Appeal through a procedural ruling in general civil cases (eg, seven days or ten days). The appellant can request an extension of the time limit.

Recourse

The time limit for filing a recourse is two months from the date the reasoned decision of the Court of Appeal is communicated. Unlike appeals, restoration of the time limit is not allowed.

The recourse must be submitted directly to the SCJ.

Appeal

Appeal serves as a review mechanism for the first-instance judgment, examining both legality and merits. The Court of Appeal only considers issues explicitly or implicitly challenged by the appellant, in accordance with Article 373(1) of the CPC. However, procedural violations may be examined ex officio by the Court of Appeal.

No new claims may be introduced on appeal that were not examined at first instance. Interest, instalments, overdue income and other post-judgment damages, as well as legal compensation, may be requested. New arguments demonstrating the unlawfulness or unfounded nature of the judgment may be presented, provided that they do not involve the administration of new evidence. New evidence may be submitted on appeal only if:

• it was impossible to present it at first instance for justified reasons;
• the evidence was not claimed by the first-instance court at the party’s request; or
• the first-instance court unreasonably returned it.

Recourse

Recourse is a review of Court of Appeal decisions (or first-instance judgments by the Court of Appeal). The SCJ examines legality only within the limits raised in the recourse, based on the grounds set out in Article 432 of the CPC. The SCJ may, ex officio, only consider the failure to include persons whose rights are affected in the proceedings.

No new evidence may be presented in recourse, except for evidence demonstrating court costs, or interest and amounts that matured after the Court of Appeal’s decision. The assessment of evidence made by the first-instance court and the Court of Appeal is binding on the SCJ, except when:

• the appellant challenges a manifestly unreasonable evaluation of evidence; or
• the SCJ examines the case following a remand for re-examination.

The court cannot impose additional conditions for granting an appeal or recourse.

Appeal

After hearing an appeal, the Court of Appeal may dismiss the appeal and uphold the first-instance judgment, or admit the appeal and:

• modify the first-instance judgment – eg, adjusting the awarded amount (increase or decrease) or clarifying the method of payment;
• annul the first-instance judgment, either fully or partially, issuing a new judgment;
• annul the first-instance judgment in full, and remit the case for re-examination at first instance, when the rights of a person not involved in the proceedings were affected, there was a violation of jurisdictional competence, or a party was not properly notified; or
• annul the first-instance judgment, either fully or partially, terminating the proceedings or removing the case from the docket, if the conditions provided in Articles 265 and 267 of the CPC are met.

In administrative disputes, the Court of Appeal is not entitled to remit the case for re-examination at first instance, due to the active role of the court.

Recourse

After hearing a recourse, the SCJ may dismiss the recourse and uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal and, where applicable, the first-instance judgment, as well as any procedural rulings contested by the recourse. Alternatively, it may admit the recourse and:

• annul, in whole or in part, the decision of the Court of Appeal and the first-instance judgment, issuing a new judgment;
• annul entirely the decision of the Court of Appeal, and remit the case for re-examination by the Court of Appeal once, if the judicial error cannot be corrected by the recourse court;
• annul the decision of the Court of Appeal and the first-instance judgment entirely, and remit the case for re-examination to the first-instance court if the court finds that persons whose rights are affected were not included in the proceedings;
• annul the decision of the Court of Appeal and the first-instance judgment, and order the termination of the proceedings or removal of the claim from the docket if the grounds provided under Articles 265 and 267 exist;
• modify the decision of the Court of Appeal and/or the first-instance judgment;
• annul the decision of the Court of Appeal, and uphold the first-instance judgment; or
• annul the decision of the Court of Appeal, and issue a ruling returning the appeal if the grounds provided under Article 369 exist.

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 (Article 90 of the CPC).

The parties are responsible for their own costs. However, the court requires the losing party to reimburse the prevailing party for the litigation costs, upon the prevailing party’s request. Therefore, all litigation costs are recoverable, but each party must submit a request in this regard (either in the statement of claim or defence), providing reasons and evidence for the costs claimed.

A party may challenge the court’s decision on costs if they are unproven, unreasonable or exempted by law (eg, employees are not liable for their employer’s judicial expenses even if they lose the lawsuit against the employer).

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.

For instance, regarding costs for legal assistance, the SCJ requires lawyers to submit a detailed report of the services provided. Failure to do so may lead to partial or total rejection of the claim for reimbursement, as the court cannot assess whether the costs were “necessary”. When assessing reasonableness, courts also take into account the quality of legal services, the amount of the lawyer’s fee, and the duration of the proceedings.

The CPC does not provide for the accrual of interest on costs, and such practice is not recognised by Moldovan courts.

The most commonly used ADR methods are:

• conciliation, which is typically organised by the parties themselves or facilitated by their attorneys, and may take place before or during the trial;
• mediation, which may take place before or during the trial and is regulated by the Law on Mediation 137/2015; and
• 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.

The legal system promotes ADR through several mechanisms integrated into court procedures:

• during the preparatory phase of the proceedings, the court has a duty to inform the parties about their right to resort to conciliation, mediation or arbitration;
• actions concerning the approval of the mediation settlements by the court are exempt from court fees;
• parties who resort to mediation after initiating court proceedings (judicial settlements) are entitled to a refund of the court fee; and
• from 2025, the state fee for applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, for applications for the annulment of arbitral awards, and for applications for the issuance of enforcement orders for arbitral awards is extremely low, at approximately EUR13.

Institutions offering and promoting ADR are moderately well organised but are still developing in terms of institutional capacity and public awareness. The main arbitration institutions are the International Commercial Arbitration Court under the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the International Commercial Arbitration Court under the American Chamber of Commerce. Both operate in accordance with international standards and provide institutional frameworks for arbitration proceedings.

Mediation activities are co-ordinated by the Mediation Council, which is the national body responsible for implementing mediation policies. Mediators may operate by registering a cabinet or an associated mediation organisation. Attorneys are also allowed to practise mediation within their cabinet or law firm, after obtaining authorisation. As of 2025, 338 mediation entities were registered in the State Registry of Mediators, reflecting gradual institutional growth.

The legal framework governing arbitration consists primarily of two main laws:

• the Law on Arbitration; and
• the Law on International Commercial Arbitration, both in force since 2008.

The legal framework on arbitration is largely based on non-mandatory provisions, granting the parties significant autonomy to determine the procedural rules applicable to their arbitration.

Moldova has ratified the New York Convention, making two reservations upon accession:

• the Convention applies to arbitral awards rendered after its entry into force for Moldova; and
• the Convention applies on a reciprocity basis, only to arbitral awards rendered on the territory of another State Party to the Convention.

According to the Law on Arbitration, the following matters may not be referred to arbitration:

• disputes arising out of family law;
• claims related to residential lease agreements, including disputes concerning their conclusion, validity, termination and classification; and
• claims and patrimonial rights relating to housing.

An arbitration agreement concerning non-patrimonial rights may have legal effect, to the extent that the parties are entitled to conclude a settlement regarding the subject matter of the dispute.

The parties can challenge an arbitral award on one of the following grounds:

• the dispute is non-arbitrable;
• the arbitration agreement is null and void;
• the arbitration award fails to mention the tribunal’s decision on the relief sought and the reasons for the decision, the place and date of the award or the signatures of the arbitrators;
• the award contains provisions that cannot be enforced;
• the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure was not in accordance with the arbitration agreement;
• the party challenging the award was not duly notified of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitral hearing, including the place, date and time, or was otherwise unable to appear before the tribunal to present the case;
• the tribunal decided on a dispute not covered by the arbitration agreement, or the award includes provisions exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement – if provisions within the award that are consistent with the arbitration agreement can be separated from those that are not, the court may set aside only the non-conforming parts of the award; or
• the award violates the fundamental principles of the legislation of the Republic of Moldova or public policy.

The request to set aside the arbitral award may be submitted within three months from the date the award is served to the party seeking to challenge it.

Enforcing Domestic Arbitral Awards

If a domestic arbitral award is not enforced voluntarily, the creditor may request a first-instance court to issue an enforcement ruling. The request is subject to a fixed court fee (approximately EUR13) and a stamp fee (approximately EUR10). The court examines the request within one month of filing, with both parties being duly notified. Their absence, however, does not prevent the examination of the case.

The court may refuse to issue an enforcement order only on limited grounds, such as:

• the arbitration agreement is null and void;
• lack of proper notice to a party;
• the award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• non-compliance with the agreed arbitral procedure or legal requirements; or
• the award is not final or has been set aside by a competent court.

Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards

Foreign arbitral awards are subject to recognition and enforcement proceedings before the Court of Appeal. To obtain recognition and enforcement, the party must submit a request to this effect to the competent court and attach legalised or apostilled copies of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement. The request is subject to a fixed court fee (approximately EUR13) and a stamp fee (approximately EUR10).

The grounds for refusal are those in the New York Convention.

The court issues an enforcement ruling, which serves as the basis for initiating enforcement proceedings before the bailiff.

There are ongoing proposals for dispute resolution reform.

Arbitration Reform

The Ministry of Justice, through a dedicated working group, has drafted a new Unified Arbitration Law to replace the current dual system (Law No 23/2008 on arbitration and Law No 24/2008 on international commercial arbitration) with a law inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law. The key proposed improvements include:

• reducing the timeframe to challenge arbitral awards from three months to 30 days;
• allowing the consolidation of procedures;
• introducing a mandatory procedural timetable to streamline proceedings; and
• in certain cases, appointing a sole arbitrator for lower-value disputes.

Mediation Reform

Based on a 2023 study by the EBRD and IDLO, the Ministry of Justice has initiated a legislative reform to introduce mandatory mediation for certain civil, family and labour disputes. The draft Law on Mediation and the Status of Mediators has been approved in the first reading by Parliament but has not yet completed adoption. Under the proposed law, parties would be required to attend an initial mediation session before applying to the courts. This model, inspired by Italy, aims to reduce court caseloads, lower costs and delays, and promote voluntary, expedited resolution of disputes.

The main growth areas for commercial disputes are:

• competition – administrative litigation challenging decisions of the Competition Council, reflecting the authority’s increased enforcement activity;
• corporate and shareholder disputes – issues related to pre-emptive rights, minority shareholder protections introduced by the 2023 LLC reform, and other corporate governance conflicts; and
• construction and real estate disputes arising from large projects, involving foreign investors, often involving delays, contractual breaches or regulatory compliance issues. The new Urbanism and Construction Code entered into force on 31 January 2025.