Point of law: whether it is admissible to recover from a State body the expenses for legal services borne by an entrepreneur in connection with considering in administrative procedure wrongful complaints of such State body against his actions as a bankruptcy trustee?

Alternative attitudes: 1) the recovery of expenses is inadmissible, because, when filing the complaints against the actions of the bankruptcy trustee, the State body was employing its legal right to do so, and the subsequent court findings that such complaints were ungrounded do not mean that it acted unlawfully (the view of lower courts); or 2) the recovery is admissible in general civil order as losses borne by the entrepreneur as a result of the violation of his rights by the State body (the view of panel of judges who submitted the case to the Presidium).

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium relied on the first interpretation and pointed out that: а) the complaints against the actions of bankruptcy trustee were submitted by the State body when acting within the limits of its powers and therefore may not be regarded as an illegal action entailing responsibility, of which the losses demanded by the applicant are a type by virtue of Arts 15 and 1069 of the Civil Code; and b) the status of the applicant as a bankruptcy trustee implies that he acts as a professional who has no need in services of bankruptcy consultants’ in case of his actions being complained against; respectively, in case of his recourse to the assistance of such specialists he should bear himself the burden of payments for their services.

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.