Subject of the dispute: Recognition of the unlawful inaction of an individual entrepreneur regarding the failure to prepare a civil protection shelter.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The State Emergency Service and local self-government bodies do not have legally defined powers to independently file a lawsuit about bringing the protective structure into proper condition.
2. The prosecutor did not prove the impossibility of protecting state interests directly by the State Emergency Service or local self-government bodies.
3. The court clearly indicated that even under martial law, authorities can act exclusively within the powers granted by law.
Court decision: To leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the previous court decisions unchanged.
