6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 31 December 1997 the applicant (hereinafter “NISTAS”) concluded a contract with the State-owned Moldovan Railways Company (Calea Ferată din Moldova, hereinafter CFM). The initial contract provided for the lending of 128 container-wagons by NISTAS to CFM for a five-year period. The contract was later modified by the parties into a leasing agreement. CFM was to pay in instalments for the use of the wagons. The total price of the contract was 4,675,560 United States Dollars (USD). 8.  Until March 2001 CFM paid regularly. However, it did not pay between March and November 2001. The debt accumulated over this period amounted to USD 705,760 and the applicant claimed that the associated contractual penalties were USD 57,166. This constitutes “the first debt”. 9.  On 13 October 2001 CFM registered with the National Bank of Moldova the lease contract, as was required by law. 10.  From November to December 2001 no payments were made. The debt for this period amounted to USD 386,560 and penalties to USD 29,185 (“the second debt”). 11.  From May to September 2002 CFM again failed to make payments. The debt accumulated over that period amounted to USD 416,943 and penalties to USD 25,263 (“the third debt”). 12.  NISTAS initiated three sets of court proceedings against CFM, claiming the above debts. 13.  On 17 January 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of NISTAS. It awarded USD 704,000 in respect of the debt, USD 57,024 in penalties and USD 22,830 in court fees. 14.  This judgment was upheld by the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova on 28 February 2002, by the Cassation Chamber of the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova on 8 April 2002 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 26 June 2002. 15.  The latter judgment was final and enforceable and was enforced at an unspecified time before February 2003. 16.  The Prosecutor General subsequently filed a request for annulment of all the above judgments and asked for the amounts awarded to be reduced. 17.  On 24 February 2003 the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed all the judgments. It adopted a new judgment whereby it confirmed the award as regards the outstanding debt and reduced to USD 15,000 the award for penalties (a difference of USD 42,024). The court accordingly also reduced the court fees awarded to USD 21,569. 18.  On 19 June 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of the applicant. It awarded USD 386,560 in respect of the debt, USD 29,185.28 in penalties and USD 12,472 in court fees. 19.  This judgment was upheld by the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova on 15 October 2002 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 27 November 2002. 20.  The latter judgment was final and enforceable and was enforced at an unspecified time before February 2003. 21.  The Prosecutor General subsequently filed a request for annulment of all the above judgments and asked for the amounts awarded to be reduced. 22.  On 24 February 2003 the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice (entirely separately from its judgment on the same day in proceedings A) upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed all the above judgments. It adopted a new judgment whereby it confirmed the award as regards the outstanding debt and reduced to USD 10,000 the award for penalties (a difference of USD 19,185). The court also reduced the court fee to USD 11,896. 23.  On 20 December 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of the applicant. It awarded USD 391,680 in respect of the debt, USD 25,263 in penalties and 171,698 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 11,947.53 euros (EUR) at the time) in court fees. 24.  This judgment was partially set aside by the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova on 23 April 2003. That court confirmed the award in respect of the debt, but awarded USD 6254 in penalties and USD 10,046 in court fees, based on Article 217 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 30 below). 25.  However, noting that two final judgments in proceedings A and B had already been executed before the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice quashed them on 24 February 2003, the court reduced the sum to be awarded as regards the debt and the court fees by a total of USD 63,045. 26.  As a result, the award in respect of the debt made in proceedings C, set by the Court at USD 391,680, was reduced to USD 328,635, taking into account the judgments of 24 February 2003. 27.  The court also ordered that the applicant pay court fees of MDL 5,915 (the equivalent of EUR 411.59 at the time) in respect of those of its claims which had been rejected by court. 28.  On 12 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice partially modified the judgment of the Appellate Chamber of the Chişinău Economic Court, increasing the amount of court fees awarded to the applicant to USD 11,938.