Point of law 1: what is the proper judicial remedy against the violation of rights of the owner of a land plot, if a lessee has built a permanent structure on it without consent of the owner and subsequently registered his ownership with respect to such structure?

Alternative attitudes: 1) the only proper remedy might be a suit on the demolition of the unauthorised structure (the view of the panel of judges who referred the case to the Presidium); or 2) it is possible to bring a suit on the recognition of ownership to such structure to be non-existent (the view of appellation and cassation courts).

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium held that the fact of the object being registered as a real property does not in itself preclude bringing a suit on the recognition of the right of ownership to be non-existent, as long as the factual circumstances of the case do not unequivocally indicate that the structure in dispute was, by its parameters, an item of real estate.

Point of law 2: whether 3-year statute of limitation is applicable to suits on deeming the right of ownership to be non-existent?

Ratio decidendi: The Presidium pointed out that the view of inferior courts on inapplicability of this statute of limitation was wrong.

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.