Point of law: given that a judgment of appellate court, which under Art 288 (part 4) of Commercial Procedure Code is not subject to cassational appeal, has deemed the imposition of a fine for a violation of legislation on advertising to be ungrounded and therefore unlawful, but later the cassational court has confirmed the existence of the violation in the plaintiff’s conduct, what should be a lawful outcome of such collision of two court decisions, both of which have entered into legal force?

Alternative attitudes: 1) the judgment of appellate court must be repealed, as being contradictory to the judgment of cassational court (the view of the panel of judges who submitted the case to the Presidium);  or 2) the consideration of the question whether the law has been breached and the consideration of the issue of imposing a fine for such breach constitute two relatively autonomous procedures, and therefore both court decisions should be left in force; or 3) challenging the decisions and prescriptions of a State regulator and challenging its decree on the imposition of a fine for such violations constitute an example of interrelated demands; if one of them may not be a subject of cassational appeal, others also may not be such; therefore, it is the judgment of cassational court that must be repealed.

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium held that the third interpretation is legally correct.

Practical consequences: the Judgment does not provide for the possibility to reverse  inconsistent court decisions in prior analogous cases by virtue of Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code. Therefore, its ratio decidendi has only prospective force.