Point of law: whether or not the right of tax office to suspend bank operations of a taxpayer is a separate securing measure?

Alternative interpretations: 1) it is not, because the suspension of bank operations may be applied as a securing measure only alongside with the prohibition against alienation (or pledging) of taxpayer’s property and on the condition that the total value of such property is less than the total amount of tax arrears to be recovered from him; or 2) the conditions pointed out in the interpretation 1 above may apply only if the suspension of bank operations is to secure a decision on the imposition of tax liability; in other cases (for instance, in case of recovery of tax arrears) they do not apply, and the suspension of operations appears constitutes a separate and independent securing measure.

Ratio decidendi: the second approach is legally correct.

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