The European way: minimum bureaucracy, maximum responsibility
In the countries of the European Union, where we want to join, the real estate profession is seen as free, flexible and oriented towards self-regulation. The state acts as an arbiter, not a supervisor. For example, in Germany, realtors receive permission to operate, confirming only the absence of a criminal record and debts. Specialized education is not required, and professional associations (IVDs) play a key role in quality improvement by offering training, codes of ethics and dispute resolution platforms.
In the Netherlands, realtors voluntarily join associations like NVM, which set standards and ensure consumer confidence. However, participation in such structures is a matter of choice, not compulsion. Control is ex post facto, through tax and antitrust authorities. Digital reporting on every transaction, as envisioned in the Moldovan law, is nonsense for most European countries.
The main principle of Europe is proportionality. The lower the risks, the more lenient the regulations. Therefore, small agencies and private realtors are not overloaded with bureaucratic requirements. Consumer protection is ensured by other means: transparent contracts, judicial practice and laws on advertising and competition.
What does the Moldovan law offer?
Contrary to European practice, the Moldovan draft law establishes mandatory certification of agents only through approved educational centers, introduces a digital reporting system, control through the Agency of Geodesy and Cadastre, and the possibility of license revocation. At the same time, professional associations are completely excluded from the regulatory process.
Instead of the institution of self-regulation, we get a departmental vertical of control, without appeal mechanisms and independent oversight. And at the epicenter of this control is the Agency, whose history causes persistent wariness.
Four fundamental inconsistencies
The new Moldovan law on real estate agents looks like a reform, but in fact contains systemic failures that make it ineffective and sometimes dangerous.
- Vague definition of the agent’s role – a source of legal uncertainty
The law introduces a definition of a real estate agent, but does not distinguish its function – whether it is an intermediary, a representative of one of the parties, a consultant or a neutral operator. In European practice, the status of an agent is always clear: either he represents one party to the transaction (seller or buyer) or acts as an independent intermediary with clearly defined duties.
The Moldovan law creates the figure of a “universal agent”: he is obliged to inform, accompany, conclude contracts, but has no right to represent the client’s interests. A contradiction arises: how can one be responsible for informing without having the right to speak on behalf of the client?
This is a legal anomaly that will inevitably lead to litigation, uncertainty in the distribution of responsibility and paralysis of transactions in practice.
- Qualification requirements are below the necessary level
Mandatory training to the extent required by law equates to short courses. However, the agent is expected to be competent in the areas of:
- civil and tax law;
- risk assessment and market value of properties;
- cadastral procedures, mortgage peculiarities, dispute mechanisms.
In essence, an agent must combine the competencies of a lawyer, appraiser, economist and marketer. But without specialized education and practical training, these requirements turn into a formality that does not correspond to the real complexity of transactions. At the same time, the responsibility is criminal and property. This creates a legal imbalance: a high level of risk with a low level of training.
- Regulation without market logic
The law introduces mandatory digital reporting for each contract, a centralized database, filtering of transactions and a system of penalties. However, it completely ignores the peculiarities of the real estate market:
- agency activities are often carried out without intermediaries – through private transactions, relatives, local arrangements;
- the price of an object is formed not according to a template, but on the basis of demand, the condition of the object and the individual circumstances of the parties;
- consumer behavior depends on trust, reputation and informal recommendations rather than a digital module.
Thus, the law lays down an administrative model that does not correspond to the organics of the market. The result is pressure on small players and rapid growth of the shadow sector.
- Threat of market monopolization and restriction of competition
Small realtors and individual agents will not be able to withstand the administrative and financial burden: training, certification, reporting, insurance, recertification. They will either go into the shadows or cease operations.
Against this background, large agencies will strengthen their positions by concluding exclusive contracts with clients. The result:
- the market will be de facto divided between a limited number of certified structures;
- the consumer will lose the freedom of choice;
- the role of the state is not to ensure competition, but to distribute access to the profession through administrative control.
An agency with a legacy of questionable practices
The Agency of Geodesy and Cadastre has already shown itself to be a structure prone to administrative monopoly. It centralized appraisal activities, formed cartels among appraisers, and, as the reports of the Accounts Chamber and donors have shown, contributed to understatement of assets during privatization, abusive lending, and distorted registers. Transferring control over the real estate market to an agency without guarantees of transparency and accountability is a direct threat to its recovery.
Risks and consequences
The administrative burden is particularly heavy for small agencies and self-employed realtors. The costs of training, reporting and certification will fall on the shoulders of consumers.
Corruption temptations – in the absence of independent control, loyal agencies will be encouraged and “inconvenient” agencies will be removed from the market.
Monopolization – digital reports, document filtering, price controls – all of these can lead to market compression, excluding independent players and imposing “official” intermediaries on the client.
Legal confusion – blurred functions of an agent, lack of clear distinction between intermediary, consultant and representative create legal uncertainty.
Transitional chaos – the six-month timeframe for reform implementation, lack of financial support for retraining and underdeveloped regional education infrastructure will lead to a wave of “gray” transactions.
Social consequences – as the experience of the Prima Casa program has shown, the lack of adequate regulation coupled with pseudo-reforms can lead to a loss of citizens’ trust and exacerbate social tensions.
Where does this path lead?
Regulation for the sake of control, not for the sake of efficiency – this is not a reform. It is a return to the Soviet model, where the state does not create a level playing field, but interferes in every transaction. This is not a step forward – it is a step backward. Instead of supporting small agents and encouraging professionalization through self-regulatory mechanisms, the law proposes digital supervision and departmental administration.
At a time when state institutions are undermining their own reputation with corrupt practices, the only way forward is transparent rules of the game, participation of the professional community in regulation and consumer protection not through sanctions, but through reputational and market-based tools.
Dmitry TEREBURKE,
real estate valuation expert
