Point of law: whether the statutory mechanism of compensation for harm caused as a result of the authorities’ persistent failure to execute court decisions excludes the right to recover, additionally, the interest for the use of another’s monetary means?

Alternative attitudes: 1) it does exclude such right because the right to judicial protection is exhausted by compensation for the persistent failure to execute court decisions (the view of lower courts); 2) compensation for harm caused as a result of the persistent failure to execute court decisions is by nature a compensation of non-property harm and, consequently, it does not exclude other judicial remedies, such as the recovery of interest for the use of another’s monetary means (the  view of the panel of judges who submitted the case to the Presidium).  

Ratio decidendi: in the view of the Presidium, the second approach is legally correct.

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.