Point of law: whether expenses incurred by the plaintiff for receiving a bank guarantee, which was a precondition for receiving an injunctive relief from the court, may be included into litigation expenses?

Alternative attitudes: 1) since the plaintiff offered the bank guarantee at its own initiative as a counter security in order to exclude the possibility of its injunctive relief motion to be dismissed by the court, the related expenses are not reasonable and may not be reimbursed; or 2) such counter securing is inseparably connected with the dispute considered by the court, while the list of litigation expenses in Art 106 of the Commercial Procedure Code is not exhaustive; accordingly, the expenses in the form of paying a remuneration to bank for a guarantee which was obtained with the view of countersecuring an injunction relief related to a suit, should be reimbursed by the losing party as a part of litigation expenses.

Ratio decidendi: the second approach is legally correct.

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.