Confirmation of a mediation settlement. Limits of judicial review in recent case law

Mediation is an increasingly used instrument in legal practice for preventing civil disputes. However, a mediation settlement does not acquire enforceability automatically; it must be confirmed by the court under Articles 487-490 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter, the “CPC”). The confirmation procedure is not purely formal. Through confirmation, the act submitted to the court becomes capable of enforcement, acquiring the effects of res judicata in the relations between the parties (Article 1920 of the Civil Code). For this reason, the legislature established effective judicial review. Under Article 489 para. (3) CPC, the judge must refuse confirmation if the settlement: a) contravenes the law or violates the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a person, the interests of society or of the state; b) was concluded in breach of the provisions of the Law on Mediation. In turn, Article 32 para. (3) of Law on Mediation No. 137/2015 prohibits the inclusion in the settlement of clauses that relate to rights and obligations over which the parties cannot freely dispose, that violate mandatory legal rules or good morals, that are manifestly inequitable, or that affect the rights of third parties not involved in mediation. Recent case law shows that courts have applied these provisions consistently and rigorously. This article analyses four categories of grounds for refusal identified in recent case law.

In Popova Natalia v. Popov Dmitri (case no. 2-8575/2026), the Chisinau Court, Central seat, refused to confirm the settlement by which the former spouses agreed to partition certain immovable property held in co-ownership by shares. The court held that such a partition concerns rights over which the parties cannot freely dispose through a settlement before a mediator. Confirmation of the act could also affect the rights of third parties not involved in mediation, including mortgage creditors or holders of registered prohibitions. Another frequent ground for refusal is the failure to attach the contract or the primary legal act from which the obligation acknowledged in the settlement derives. In ÎM “INCASO” SRL v. Andrei Petcov (case no. 2-8430/2026), the court refused confirmation because the claimant did not submit the contract referred to in the mediation settlement. In its absence, the judge could not verify the origin of the debt, maturity, payments made and the manner in which the claimed amount was formed. The same approach was followed in ÎM “INCASO” SRL v. Burladean Andrea (case no.: 2-128/26). The Criuleni Court, Dubăsari seat, held that failure to submit the contract prevents verification of the debt composition, including whether the amount includes interest, penalties or other payments. The burden of submitting supporting documents rests with the person requesting confirmation of the settlement. In SRL “PfB Legal Consulting” v. Catan Galina (case no.: 2-6493/26), the Chisinau Court, Central seat, refused confirmation due to contradictions concerning the contract from which the claim derived. The claimant invoked a certain credit agreement, but the settlement and the documents related to the assignment indicated a different contract number. The court considered that it could not presume the existence of the same claim or of a mere clerical error without an express clarification by the parties. In Grinshpun Emmanuil v. ÎCS “Trans World Entertainment” SRL (case no.: 2-9425/2026), the court refused to confirm a settlement concerning a debt of more than MDL 55 million and interest of more than MDL 1.4 million. The assignment agreement constituting the basis of the obligation was not submitted, the method for converting the amount from U.S. dollars into Moldovan lei was not explained, and the claimed interest was not justified by a verifiable calculation. In the same case, the debtor acknowledged only the principal amount and contested the interest. The court held that this partial objection excludes the existence of full agreement on the subject matter of the dispute. Consequently, the obligation could not be regarded as certain, liquid and due.

The analysed case law shows that courts do not confirm settlements based on unclear, incomplete or insufficiently documented claims. To obtain confirmation of the settlement, the parties must prove the primary legal relationship, the documents concerning any assignment, the calculation of the debt, proof of payments and the explanations necessary to identify precisely the obligation undertaken. Article 488 para. (2) CPC does not require the claimant to attach the primary documents on which the mediation settlement is based. However, courts examine this aspect cautiously and refuse confirmation of the settlement when they cannot verify its source, namely the primary legal relationship. Thus, the settlement must precisely identify the disputed legal relationship and must not contain contradictions concerning the contract, the amount, the debtor or the basis of the obligation. In the absence of these elements, the court will refuse confirmation of the settlement, and the creditor will have to pursue its claims through ordinary civil proceedings. Such proceedings entail additional costs and a longer examination period compared with the procedure for confirming the settlement.