6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Haiger, Germany. 7.  On 12 November 1996, the applicant bought 7,000 shares having the value of 3,500,000,000 Old Romanian Lei (ROL), in a Romanian company, L. (“the company”). On 24 January 1997 and 21 September 1998 these shares, representing 87.5% of the total value of the company’s nominal capital, were recorded in the trade register (Registrul Comerţului). 8.  On 26 September 1999 the other shareholders decided, in the applicant’s absence, to increase the company’s capital by assets contributed by one of the shareholders, thus devaluating the applicant’s share in the company from 87.5 % to 10.29% of its capital. On 4 October 1999 mention of this modification was made in the trade register. 9.  On 4 November 1999 the applicant lodged an action with the Bucharest County Court, seeking the annulment of the 26 September 1999 decision. 10.  The action was allowed on 22 October 2001. The County Court considered that the decision under review had not observed the requirements of Law no. 31/1990 on companies (“Law no. 31”). It therefore cancelled it.
The solution was upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 25 February 2000 and also by the Supreme Court of Justice, in a final decision of 27 June 2001, upon appeals by the company. 11.  On 6 November 2000 the applicant lodged a request with the Trade Register Office for the 4 October 1999 entry to be removed from the trade register. On 18 January 2001 the request was allowed, on the ground that the shareholders’ decision of 26 September 1999 had been annulled by the courts. Upon an appeal by the company, that solution was upheld by the Bucharest County Court in a final decision of 8 March 2001.
On an unspecified date, the Procurator General lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, with a view to having the final decision of 27 June 2001 quashed (recurs în anulare), on the grounds that the ordinary courts had been wrong in considering that the shareholders’ decision had not complied with the legal requirements and that, in any case, the applicant had lacked standing to bring his initial action. 12.  The Supreme Court considered that the evidence in the case confirmed that the 26 September 1999 decision had observed Law no. 31. Therefore, in a final decision of 9 June 2003, it allowed the extraordinary appeal and, on the merits of the case, rejected the applicant’s initial action.