5. The applicant company is specialised in the production of chemical products in the Expo-Business-Chişinău Free Economic Zone. 6.  On 15 October 2001 the State Tax Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate”) ordered the applicant company to pay value-added tax in the amount of 2,021,312 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 126,000 euros (EUR)) and a fine of MDL 1,617,049 (approximately EUR 101,000) for failure to pay the aforementioned value-added tax. The applicant company disputed the tax assessment and argued that it was exempt from paying value-added tax in accordance with the Act establishing the Expo-Business-Chişinău Free Economic Zone (“the FEZ Act”). As the Inspectorate did not accept the applicant company’s arguments and its interpretation of the law, the applicant company instituted proceedings. 7.  On 19 June 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice issued a final ruling on the case and found in favour of the applicant company. The applicant was cleared of the obligation to pay the sums imposed by the Inspectorate. 8.  On 20 October 2005 Parliament adopted a bill on the interpretation of the FEZ Act (“the Interpretation Act”), giving the FEZ Act a different interpretation from that given by the applicant company and the courts. 9.  On 2 November 2005 the Inspectorate applied for review of the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 June 2002, on the basis of the new interpretation given to the law by Parliament. 10.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant company was informed by telephone by the Registry of the Supreme Court that a hearing in the case would take place on 16 November 2005. The company’s chief executive officer applied for an adjournment, arguing that he would not be able to participate in the hearing. 11.  On 16 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice held a hearing in the case, in the absence of the applicant company’s representative, and upheld the application for review lodged by the Inspectorate. It quashed the previous judgment and ruled in favour of the Inspectorate. 12.  On 30 November 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the Interpretation Act unconstitutional. In view of that, on 12 December 2006 the applicant company lodged an application for review of the judgment of 16 November 2005 with the Supreme Court of Justice. However, the application was dismissed on 24 January 2007. 13.  The parties disagree on whether the judgment of 16 November 2005 was enforced. According to the applicant company, it was partially enforced and it paid 42,906 Moldovan Lei (MDL). The rest of the sum sought by the Inspectorate could not be paid because the applicant company became insolvent. The Government dispute this submission and argue that the judgment of 16 November 2005 was never enforced.