Point of law: whether it is possible to institute a group action under Chapter 28.2 of the Commercial Procedure Code, if the plaintiff and the persons, in whose interests he files a suit, are not participants of the same legal relation, because their demands as to the recovery of losses are based on independent contracts, the losses differ in terms of their amounts and composition, and the plaintiff lacks the status of individual entrepreneur?

Alternative attitudes: 1) group action is possible, because the main criterion of jurisdiction as regards a group action is its connection to entrepreneurial or another economic activity, and also there are features of unity in the subject matter of action (view of the panel of judges of the Supreme Commercial Court); or 2) it is impossible, because the demands as to the recovery of losses originate from different contracts (the view of lower courts); or 3) it is impossible because, given plaintiff’s lack of the status of individual entrepreneur, the dispute is not connected with the exercise of entrepreneurial or another economic activity (opinion of the first instance court).

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium came to conclusion that the disputes connected with the exercise of activities of professional dealers and brokers in the stock market are not within the jurisdiction of commercial courts regardless of the status of the parties and of whether or not the opportunity of group action has been used.

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.