The Plenary Session considered the issues related to the inter-tariff difference generated by the State regulation of prices (tariffs), that is, by there being established below the economically justified level. Of a particular interest is para 3 of the Judgment, which divides liability between different public authorities: if a particular public authority has established the tariff for consumers directly, but it did so in furtherance of certain obligatory indicators issued by another public authority, the latter must be brought to dispute as a co-defender, provided, however, that it has rejected a proposal to fix the tariff at a level which would have prevented such inter-tariff difference.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases, if inconsistent with interpretations therein, may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code. However, “for the purposes of observing the principle of legal certainty and for the avoidance of violation of reasonable expectations of participants of civil turnover” some of them (including the interpretation contained in para 3) may have only prospective force, starting from the moment of publication of the Judgment on the Supreme Commercial Court web site (27.12.2013).