Jurisprudence uniformization denied due to factual divergence preventing legal issue resolution.

The Supreme Administrative Court unanimously refused to unify jurisprudence because the underlying decisions relied on divergent factual and legal premises. The authority sought uniform application of a legal rule, but the parties presented conflicting factual scenarios that precluded a single legal conclusion. Consequently, the court determined that no uniform precedent could be established without resolving the fundamental factual disputes first.