The appeal concerned mainly the competence of the authority that had issued the penalty order. According to the Law on Consumer Protection and the Rules of Trade of 1999 (replaced by the Law on Consumer Protection) the Commission on Consumer Protection was to issue penalty orders after authorization by the Ministry of Trade and Tourism. The appellant argued that after a structural reform transforming this Ministry into Ministry of the Economy, the penalty order issued by the Ministry of Trade and Tourism was to be considered invalid since it was not issued by a competent authority.
The Appellate Court found that the Commission on Consumer Protection and Trade was duly authorized by the Ministry of Trade and Tourism to issue penalty orders for violations of the Law on Tourism. The Court held that such authorization retains its validity until it is explicitly withdrawn. The Court further pointed out that according to Government Regulation Nr. 9 of 2000 the Ministry of the Economy is the successor of the Ministry of Trade and Tourism and is consequently fully bound by all the acts issued by and on behalf of the latter Ministry.
On these grounds the Court dismissed the appeal.