5.  The applicant is a taxi cab company from Chişinău. At the time of the events it employed approximately ninety persons and was functioning on the basis of a licence issued by the Licensing Chamber (Camera de Licențiere din Republica Moldova) in July 2005. 6.  On 13 December 2007 the Licensing Chamber issued decision no. 4891 by which the applicant company’s licence was withdrawn in view of irregularities. In particular, the applicant company failed to request the inclusion of the names of two new persons employed in administrative positions and of new cars in its licence within the ten-day time-limit provided for by law. 7.  On 18 January 2008 the applicant company initiated court proceedings against the Licensing Chamber seeking the annulment of its order of 13 December 2007. The applicant company submitted, inter alia, that the sanction applied to it had been disproportionally harsh and in breach of the company’s right to property. It argued that ninety persons employed by the company had lost their jobs as a result of the measure applied to it and that the company had suffered losses of approximately 170,000 Euros (EUR). The applicant company submitted that it could not comply with the requirement of including all fifty-two new cars in the licence in ten days because of new regulations instituted by the Government according to which all taxi cabs had to be equipped with receipt printing machines. The company did not have sufficient time to equip all new cars because of the lengthy bureaucratic procedure and because all the taxi cab companies were attempting to do that at the same time. The company submitted that it only managed to equip twenty-eight of its cars with the new equipment. 8.  On 9 April 2008 the Chişinău Court of Appeal found in favour of the applicant company. Referring to the alleged breach by the applicant company of the ten-day time limit to inform the authorities about the new cars, the Court of Appeal found inter alia that the formalities linked to the equipment of those cars with receipt printing machines made it impossible for the applicant company to comply with the time-limit. In that context the Court of Appeal found that all the taxi cab companies were doing the same thing at the time, which created lengthy delays. As to the applicant company’s failure to inform the Licensing Chamber about two new employees at the company, the Court of Appeal held that that breach was minor and could not justify such a severe sanction. Relying on the Court’s judgments in the cases of Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova (no. 21151/04, 8 April 2008) and Bimer S.A. v. Moldova (no. 15084/03, 10 July 2007) the Court of Appeal found that the interference with the applicant company’s right to respect for its possessions had not been proportionate with the legitimate aim pursued and, thus, that the withdrawal of the applicant company’s licences had been in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 9.  On 23 September 2008 the Licensing Chamber lodged an appeal against the above judgment. It does not appear that the applicant company lodged written pleadings with the Supreme Court of Justice. 10.  On 12 February 2009, after an oral hearing, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appeal lodged by the Licensing Chamber, quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the applicant company’s action. The Supreme Court held that that according to the law in force, the breaches committed by the applicant company were sufficient ground for withdrawing its licence.