The Plaintiff claimed that the procedure for ending sublease of a mining operation under the Ministial regulation, which prevented the Plaintiff from ending the contract without the consent of the sublessee or from the Court eventhough the subleasee breached the contract and the restrictions of the license, was unlawful. The Plaintiff therefore requested the Court to order revocation of the Ministrial regulation. The Court however found that the Plaintiff did not file the case within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date the cause of action was known or should have been known, which was at the latest the date the Plaintiff subleased the mining operation. The claim was therefore barred by prescription. As a result, the case was dismissed.