Point of law: if in the course of judicial proceedings it has been found that the defendant behaved in an unscrupulous manner, in particular, if he refused to disclose the necessary information, whether the plaintiff should then prove the facts he states to be true, or the burden of proving (or, rather, of refuting) them should be shifted upon the defendant?

Alternative attitudes: 1) the burden of rebuttal in such cases must be placed upon the defendant; 2) the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.

Ratio decidendi: in the opinion of the Presidium, the first version is legally correct – the refusal of the defendant to disclose the information must be assessed as the recognition of the facts which the plaintiff states to be true.

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. It should be also noted that this is the first case in which the Presidium applied the doctrine of “restoration of corporate control” with respect to shares in joint-stock companies (previously it was applied to misappropriated shares in limited liability companies).