Alternative attitudes: 1) from the moment when the plaintiff (Moscow City Government) has actually come to know of the fact of unauthorised construction works (the view of cassational court and of the panel of judges of the Supreme Commercial Court at the first consideration of the case); or 2) from an earlier moment, when the object of construction has been registered in the State Register (the opinion of the appellation court and of the panel of judges of the Supreme Commercial Court at the second consideration of the case).

Ratio decidendi: the second approach is legally correct. The Presidium emphasised that the administrative bodies subordinate to the plaintiff were able to learn within the period of limitation about the registration of the object and, consequently, about construction works being carried out without permission; therefore, the period of limitation should run from the moment of registration.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.