The saga surrounding the Chișinău Airport concession would seem to have ended in victory for the state. The contract with Avia Invest was terminated, the airport returned to state control in 2023, and an attempt by Komaksavia—a company linked to the former concessionaire—to recover hundreds of millions of euros from Moldova failed in international arbitration.
However, the criminal trial regarding the airport's transfer under concession is creating a new legal situation in this matter. During the trial—in his "closing statement"—former Minister of Economy Valeriu Lazăr drew the judges' attention to the fact that the prosecution's demands to invalidate the technical feasibility study and the concession agreement itself dated August 30, 2013, along with the demand to find the former officials involved in preparing the concession guilty, are, at the very least, suspicious. If the court were to grant these requests—taken together—it would hand the former concessionaire the former concessionaire with nearly ideal legal grounds to initiate proceedings in international courts to review the decision of the Moldovan civil courts to terminate the concession agreement, with all the ensuing consequences, including financial ones, for the state.
Eight people are on trial in the airport concession case, including former Prime Minister Iurie Leancă, former Minister of Economy Valeriu Lazăr, as well as former officials of the Public Property Agency and the airport. The prosecution is seeking six years in prison for six of the defendants and five years for the other two, as well as compensation to the state in the amount of more than 392 million lei. The defendants deny the charges. The verdict is scheduled to be handed down on November 30, 2026.
At first glance, the difference between terminating a contract and declaring it invalid may seem like a legal formality. In practice, the consequences can be fundamentally different due to conceptual contradictions between the two. Termination means the cessation of a contract that was previously legally valid; otherwise, the courts would have had no grounds to uphold the legality of the Public Property Agency's (APP) decision to unilaterally terminate the concession contract for the assets of Chișinău International Airport. Declaration of invalidity, on the other hand, means that the grounds for concluding the contract were unlawful from the very beginning; accordingly, under civil law, the parties return to their original positions. This inevitably raises the question of the fate of the property and the funds invested over the years of the contract's execution.
Until now, the state's position has been that the concessionaire violated the terms of the agreement, which justified terminating the concession and returning the airport to the state. Consequently, the concessionaire had, at the very least, no moral right to demand any compensation, and from a legal standpoint, the prospects in this regard are very "unclear." However, if the court finds that the contract was invalid from the outset—due to the fault of high-ranking officials from the government and APP, and furthermore in violation of established procedures (which is precisely the basis for the prosecution's demand to invalidate the feasibility study)—that is, through no fault of the concessionaire—the situation will change radically and clearly not in the state's favor.
This poses a potential property and financial risk to the state, represented by the APP and the State Enterprise "Chișinău International Airport." According to data presented by Valeriu Lazăr in court, the Public Property Agency's monitoring commission had previously confirmed Avia Invest's investments in the airport's modernization at approximately 87 million euros. If the contract is declared invalid, the former concessionaire may attempt to use this circumstance to file claims for reimbursement of the cost of investments made, including facilities returned to the state. Whether such claims are granted will depend on their legal basis and the evidence presented.
The aforementioned 87 million euros does not constitute an established debt of Moldova. The mere declaration of the contract's invalidity does not, in and of itself, impose an obligation on the state to pay this amount from the state budget; however, it does pose serious financial risks for the state-owned enterprise Chișinău International Airport. The validity of any potential compensation will depend on applicable law, verified investments, and other circumstances surrounding the contract's performance.
In 2022, the Stockholm Arbitration Tribunal rejected the claims of Komaksavia Airport Invest Ltd, which owned 95% of Avia Invest. The company demanded either the continuation of the concession agreement or the payment of 883.7 million euros in compensation for the alleged expropriation of its investment. In addition, claims related to lost revenue were asserted. The tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Komaksavia had failed to prove the existence of an investment protected by a relevant international agreement.
In February 2025, the Stockholm Court of Appeal rejected Komaksavia's attempt to have the arbitral award set aside. Thus, Moldova secured a favorable outcome in the international dispute arising from the termination of the concession.
The previous international dispute concerned the termination of the concession and the alleged expropriation. Declaring the agreement itself invalid could raise another question: what are the property-related consequences if an agreement that has been in effect for nearly ten years is deemed invalid from the moment of its conclusion—not due to the concessionaire's fault, but due to the fault of government officials?
The paradox of this story lies in the fact that, through the government's efforts, Moldova has already reclaimed the airport by terminating the concession agreement—which a court had ruled lawful in a civil dispute—and has won a key international dispute. At the same time, the prosecution in the concession case—represented by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office acting on behalf of the same state—is attempting to prove the illegality of the mechanism by which the airport was transferred under concession and to obtain a ruling from another court in a criminal case declaring the same agreement invalid. And this could reopen the question of the financial implications of the concession. Whether this entails additional financial obligations for the state will depend on the content of the court ruling, the legal grounds for any potential claims, and how the courts assess them. // 20.10.2026 – InfoMarket.