4.  The applicant company was founded in 1992 and is based in Baia Mare. 5.  On 14 March 1996 the applicant company lodged an action seeking to compel company A. (a State-owned private company) to return 2,934,854,487 Romanian lei (ROL), representing the price of merchandise delivered by the applicant and not paid by A., plus interest. The defendant objected, claiming that the debt had already been paid. 6.  The applicant paid ROL 10,000 in court fees but was asked by the court to make a supplementary payment to cover a percentage of the total claim. On 31 May 1996 the court calculated the fee at ROL 270,162,136.
On 28 June 1996 the company contested the new court fee and argued that according to the law, as interpreted by the higher courts, it should only pay ROL 10,000.
On 4 October 1996 it reiterated its position on the matter. 7.  On the same day the court started deliberations in the case. 8.  On 11 October 1996 the court restored the case to its list and summoned the parties to a hearing on 29 November 1996 to discuss the need for an expert evaluation of the claims. 9.  On 20 January 1997 company A. accepted the calculation of the debt. 10.  An evaluation of the debt was ordered and the report was submitted to the court on 11 December 1997. 11.  On several occasions during the proceedings the defendant asked that the applicant company be requested to pay court fees. Several adjournments were granted to this end. 12.  On 26 September 1997 the defendant informed the court that insolvency proceedings had been initiated against it (see paragraph 19 below). 13.  On 5 February 1998 the Maramureş County Court cancelled the action for failure to pay the court fees. It also noted that the applicant company had never contested the level of the court fee. 14.  The applicant company appealed, arguing that according to the law on which it based its initial action the court fee was set at a lump sum of ROL 10,000 irrespective of the amount claimed, a sum which it had already paid over at the start of the proceedings. The applicant paid the court fees for the appeal in the amount of ROL 10,000 and ROL 3,000 in judicial stamps. 15.  On 27 May 1998 the Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded. The decision was enforceable. 16.  On 24 June 1998 the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law. 17.  On 9 May 2006 the applicant company sought information on the proceedings from the Maramureş County Court. In reply, on 12 May 2006 the County Court informed the applicant company that due to an administrative error the appeal on points of law had only been forwarded to the Supreme Court of Justice on 12 May 2006. 18.  In a final decision of 15 February 2008 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the appeal as ill-founded. It noted that in so far as the debtor contested the claim, the first‑instance court was correct in seeking court fees proportionate to the value of the claim. 19.  On 5 April 1995 one of company A.'s creditors sought institution of insolvency proceedings against company A., under the relevant Articles of the Commercial Code. 20.  From 10 May 1995 to 25 June 1997 the proceedings were stayed at company A.'s request, as the Government had adopted programmes for the financial rehabilitation of the company (Government Ordinance no. 13/1995 on restructuring State-owned companies). 21.  On 18 March 1998 the Maramureş County Court declared company A. insolvent. Following the reports on the company's financial situation, on 9 July 1998 it started winding-up proceedings. 22.  On 11 June 1998 the applicant company requested the inclusion in the creditors' list of its claim of 1,474,012.64 United States dollars (USD). The claim was contested by the “debtor”, company A.
On 9 February 1999 the applicant reiterated its claim, which was included provisionally in the creditors' list pending examination of the objections raised. 23.  On 16 February 2000 the County Court rejected the applicant company's claim as no longer enforceable (prescrisă). It considered that enforcement time had not been interrupted by the action for recovery of debt, in so far as that action had been annulled for failure to pay the court fees. 24.  On 22 November 2000 the Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. It reiterated that the claim was no longer enforceable. It also considered that the claim, which had been contested by the debtor, had not been certified and quantified in the proceedings for recovery of debt, because the applicant's action had been cancelled. 25.  On 20 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the decision, which thus became final. 26.  On 30 May 2000 the Oradea Customs Office (Direcţia Generală Vamală Oradea) sought the winding up of the applicant company's business for an unpaid debt of ROL 458,121,902. 27.  On 26 June 2000 the proceedings were stayed as the applicant company contested the debt (the applicant company won that action on 18 September 2002). 28.  On 3 November 2003 the Maramureş County Court started the winding-up proceedings. On 21 January 2004 the Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal quashed the decision and rejected the 30 May 2000 request.