Point of law: whether two suits concerning the recovery of lease payments due are identical, given that both suits have the same grounds (both have arisen out of the same circumstances) and differ solely in the amount which is being demanded from the debtor (the first suit was about the recovery of a part of the debt only)?

Alternative attitudes: 1) such suits must be considered as being identical; hence, the proceedings with regard to the later suit should be terminated by virtue of Art 150 (para 2 of part 1) of the Commercial Procedure Code (the view of cassational court); 2) such suits are not identical – they have the same grounds, but differ in subject; therefore, the proceedings with regard to the later suit should not be terminated (the view of panel of judges which referred the case to the Presidium).

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium held that the first view is right in law.

Practical consequences: the Judgment does not say 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. At the same time, this judgment may terminate the wide-spread practice of artificial splitting of cases and creating tentative suits.