Point of law: whether the coercion to conclude a contract on the transmission of electricity between allied grid companies is lawful, provided that in the proposed draft of the contract the plaintiff appears only as a contractor (the one who renders services) whereas the defendant (the company which is being compelled to the conclusion of the contract) appears only as a customer (the consumer of services)?

Alternative views: 1) the coercion to conclude contract is lawful even in the absence of consideration in the form of reciprocal rendering of services by the defendant because the tariff and the procedure for settlements between allied grid companies have been fixed by a state regulator; or 2) the coercion to conclude contract in question is unlawful because in the draft contract the defendant appears only as a consumer of the services, that is, not an obligor.

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium held that the second view is legally correct. Besides, it pointed out, firstly, that judicial coercion to conclude such contract would mean coercing the defendant to use those services of the plaintiff which had no economic substance and, secondly, that courts must assess the real economic substance of the draft contract and the real purposes that the plaintiff pursued by making an application to coerce the defendant to conclude the contract. Furthermore, the judicial decision on the coercion to conclude a contract must contain the conditions on which the parties are obliged to conclude it; otherwise such decision cannot be executed.

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.