6.  The first applicant, RJ Import Roger Jaeger A.G., is a commercial company located in Herrliberg, Switzerland. The second applicant, RJ Import Bucureşti S.A., located in Bucharest, Romania, is a subsidiary company of the first applicant who ownes 51 % of its shares. 7.  In 1997 the second applicant concluded with the State-owned company S.C. Craser S.A. (“Craser”) a purchasing contract for industrial equipment. The second applicant paid the price of the contract partly in money partly by buying a debt of the seller. By subsequent commercial transactions the creditor of the debt owed by the second applicant became the first applicant. 8.  By a final judgment of 16 April 2002 the Bucharest Court of Appeal annulled the 1997 contract finding that it had been concluded in breach of the law. At an unspecified date the second applicant had returned the equipment to the seller but the latter refused to return the price received. 9.  On 22 April 2004 the second applicant requested before the courts the reimbursement of the price paid according to the purchasing contract as well as the value of the investments subsequently incurred with respect to the equipment in question. On 17 November 2004 the Bucharest County Court obliged Craser to pay the second applicant 1,350,000 Swiss Francs as price of the contract, 35,994,375,000 Romanian Lei (ROL) as investments incurred and ROL 5,171,000 as court fees. The judgment became final on 2 December 2004 as it was not appealed against by the parties. 10.  On 9 July 2004 the first and second applicants requested before the courts the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against Craser. By a judgment of the Dolj County Court of 3 November 2004 the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced. On 27 April 2005 the Craiova Court of Appeal decided by a final judgment to include both applicants on the list of creditors: the first applicant with the debt it had bought and the second applicant with the amounts awarded by the judgment of 17 November 2004. According to the information submitted by the parties these proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts. 11.  Despite the applicants’ efforts, the judgment of 17 November 2004 remained non-enforced to date.