7.  On 1 May 1999 the applicant concluded a contract with another private company. According to the contract, the applicant would locate assets belonging to the debtors of the second company in exchange for a commission. Since the second company failed to comply with the contract, the applicant brought an action against it seeking damages for breach of the contract. 8.  On 8 May 2001 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded it 244,939 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 21,050.46 euros (EUR) at that time). 9.  On 30 January and 9 October 2002 the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova and the Supreme Court of Justice respectively dismissed the second company’s appeals and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court, which thus became final. 10.  On 24 December 2002 the Prosecutor General lodged with the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgment in favour of the applicant. 11.  On 27 January 2003 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the judgment. It adopted a new judgment dismissing the applicant’s action. 12.  Following the communication of the case by the Court, the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General to lodge a request with the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice in order to quash its judgment of 27 January 2003 and to discontinue the request for annulment proceedings. He considered that the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant following the annulment proceedings had breached the applicant’s rights under the Convention. 13.  On 2 November 2004 the Prosecutor General complied with the Government Agent’s request. He lodged a revision request relying on section 449 § 1 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”, see paragraph 16 below) and indicated that the applicant and the Government intended to conclude a friendly settlement agreement. 14.  By a judgment of 21 February 2005 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the Prosecutor’s request for revision on the ground that the parties had not submitted any evidence of the alleged friendly settlement.