Some earlier explanations related to challenging transactions of the debtor being in the process of bankruptcy were developed by this Judgment. It had been explained before that an amicable agreement with such debtor which was affirmed by a court in a different case in adversarial proceedings could be contested following the general rules envisaged by the Law on Bankruptcy for challenging the debtor’s transactions. The new explanations specify that it is not the amicable agreement but the court ruling that has affirmed it which should be appealed against. This may be done by either bankruptcy creditors or empowered State bodies believing that their rights and interests have been violated by the amicable agreement. Such appeal may be filed following the initiative of an arbitration trustee. If these persons lapsed the terms for the appeal, the court may toll it, having regard to the moment when the applicant has come to know (or ought to) about the violation of his rights and interests.

Copies of such appeal (complaint) shall be sent by the applicant to a representative of the creditors’ meeting (if there is such) which also is notified by the court. All bankruptcy creditors and empowered bodies which submitted their claims in bankruptcy case, as well as the arbitration trustee, may take part in considering such complaint, including the right to submit new evidence and put forward arguments. These persons may not repeatedly and on the same grounds appeal against the same ruling that affirmed the amicable agreement.

Besides, it is pointed out that transactions of a citizen in case of his bankruptcy may be contested by any person participating in bankruptcy procedures regardless of whether or not a bankruptcy trustee has been appointed in such case.

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