Moldova: when an arbitration-clause objection comes too late

What happened

In case 2ra-185/18, “Сэвиг Трэйд” sought payment, interest and penalties from Alexandru Zaricinîi for supplied fuel. The first-instance court allowed the claim. The Chișinău Court of Appeal set that judgment aside and removed the claim from the docket after accepting the defendant’s reliance on the contractual arbitration provision.

Why the clause objection failed

On pages 5–6 CSJ considered Code Article 267(e) and Law 23/2008 Article 9(1)–(4). The defendant had attended the first-instance hearings, had counsel and could object, but did not invoke the clause. The appellate court incorrectly treated his later submission as his first substantive statement. CSJ also recited the statutory exception for a legally justified late objection, but the facts here did not justify it.

Disposition and limits

On 6 February 2019 CSJ quashed the appellate decision and remitted the merits to a different appellate panel. It did not make a new debt award or declare the clause invalid. The decision concerns timely opposition to state-court proceedings, rather than territorial selection between courts in Bălți and Chișinău.

For a new case, check current legislation and the timing of the first substantive statement. This decision guides application of Law 23/2008 Article 9 before new Law 198/2026 enters into force on 1 March 2027. See jurisdictional objections and selecting the state court.