Moldova: choosing the court when the defendant’s address information conflicts

What the Supreme Court decided

Case 2ac-84/26 involved a negative jurisdictional conflict between Judecătoria Bălți, Fălești seat, and Judecătoria Chișinău, Centru seat. The bank sought debt recovery from two individuals. This was an ordinary civil claim, not the setting aside or enforcement of an arbitral award.

CSJ applied Code Articles 33 and 33¹ on the ordinary jurisdiction of judecătorii, Article 38 on the defendant’s domicile, Article 42(1) on multiple defendants and Article 44 on jurisdictional conflicts. A bank’s participation did not establish jurisdiction in a separate economic court.

How domicile was established

In paragraphs 18–21 the court compared current state-register data with earlier address information. The defendant’s registered Chișinău domicile was not rebutted. Her telephone confirmation was treated as corroboration, not an independently sufficient jurisdictional basis.

Result and practical use

On 18 May 2026 CSJ identified Judecătoria Chișinău, Centru seat, as competent and referred the case to it. The order was not appealable. Its practical significance concerns proving a current address when selecting a court; arbitration-related applications require their own rules in the state-court comparison.