Point of law: who must prove the illegality of non-feasance of a State agency – this agency or the applicant who contests such non-feasance in a court?

Alternative solutions: 1) the burden of proof should be placed upon the applicant; 2) the burden of proof should be placed upon the State agency, so that the illegality of its failure to act shall be presumed.

Ratio decidendi: The Presidium found the second solution to be 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.