4.  The applicant company is a joint stock company based in Ploieşti. 5.  In 2000 the applicant company brought proceedings against the Ariceştii Rahtivani town council seeking payment by the latter of the amount of 448,586,286 old Romanian lei (ROL), updated at the date of payment, for damages allegedly resulting from a contract they had entered into, which concerned repairs that had to be carried out by the applicant company to the defendant's new headquarters. The applicant company also requested the court to attach the defendant's accounts up to that amount and to order the town council to pay interest in accordance with Government Ordinance no. 9/2000 regarding the legal level of interest for pecuniary obligations. 6.  On 15 May 2001 the Prahova County Court (“the County Court”) attached the town council's financial assets in the Treasury. 7.  On 28 August 2001 the County Court, by an enforceable judgment, allowed the action in part and ordered the town council to pay the applicant company ROL 433,545,816 as due payment and ROL 33,315,916 in respect of the costs of the proceedings. The court based its findings on an accounting expert report which had updated the due amount and had also calculated the due interest in accordance with Government Ordinance no. 9/2000. 8.  On 18 January 2002 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), by a final decision, allowed an appeal by the applicant company, considering that it was also entitled to the reimbursement of the penalties for overdue payments to the State budget. It therefore supplemented the previous amount by ROL 751,742,532 for damages and ROL 15,923,050 for costs of proceedings and further ordered the defendant to pay ROL 13,284,025 in respect of the costs of the appeal proceedings. 9.  In February-April 2002 the debtor paid, in four instalments, ROL 433,545,816. In September 2003 it paid ROL 33,315,916. These were the amounts stipulated by the judgment of 28 August 2001. 10.  On 9 April 2002 the Ploieşti Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”), in private, consented to a seizure requested by the bailiff, at the applicant company's request, in respect of the town council's goods and declared that the two judgments could be enforced, since the debtor had not voluntarily executed its obligation. An appeal by the town council was dismissed on 14 June 2002 by the County Court, which held that the debtor's appeal was an attempt to procrastinate and abusively delay the payment. That ruling became final. 11.  By two interlocutory decisions delivered in private on 18 June 2003 the Court of First Instance, upon two requests by the applicant company, attached the town council's immovable and movable property and declared that the two judgments could be enforced. Two appeals by the town council were allowed by two judgments of 19 September 2003 of the County Court, which found that the town council had to pay only the remainder, ROL 576,828,428. 12.  On 7 April 2004 the town council also paid ROL 576,828,428 out of the ROL 751,742,532 stipulated by the judgment of 18 January 2002, as well as ROL 15,923,050 for costs and expenses stipulated by the same judgment. 13.  However, on 13 July 2004 and 8 February 2005 respectively the Court of Appeal, by final decisions, allowed further appeals by the applicant company and upheld the rulings of the two interlocutory decisions (see paragraph 11 above), considering that it was not for the court which had authorised the enforcement to establish the scope of the obligation contained in the title. 14.  Following the payment of 7 April 2004 (see paragraph 12 above), but before the judgment of 13 July 2004 (see paragraph 13 above), the town council objected to the execution. An accounting expert report was produced in the proceedings, assessing the remaining debt according to the dates of the partial payments and on the basis of the inflation rate and of the interest rate provided by Government Ordinance no. 9/2000. 15.  On 9 December 2004 the Court of First Instance allowed the objection in part and ordered the continuation of the execution by seizure up to ROL 1,353,840,852. The court relied on Article 3712 § 3 of the Code of Civil Proceedings (“CCP”) (see Relevant domestic law below) and approved the findings of the accounting expert report, considering that the court which had awarded damages to the applicant company had also deemed necessary to award the loss of profit or any benefit, since the applicant company was engaged in commercial activity and thus would have had the opportunity to use those amounts if they had been paid when those judgments were delivered. 16.  The town council appealed, alleging that the applicant company had no enforceable entitlement to both the inflation rate and the loss of profit. It considered that, from the interpretation of Article 3712 § 3 of the CCP, the applicant company was not entitled to claim the updating of the amount since that fact was not mentioned in the operative parts of the judgments of 28 August 2001 and 18 January 2002. The town council further contested the findings of the first-instance court, which held that the courts which had awarded damages had also awarded the sums in respect of loss of profit under Government Ordinance no. 9/2000, since the applicant company was a trading company. That finding was thus in conflict with Article 3712 § 2 of the CCP (see Relevant domestic law below). 17.  At a hearing on 11 March 2005 the applicant company's lawyer submitted a request for the proceedings to be adjourned because of illness and consequent inability to appear before the court. The court dismissed that request and, in order to allow the applicant company to submit written conclusions, put forward the deliberations to 18 March 2005. On 17 March 2005 the applicant company further submitted to the court a request to restore the case to its list, and also its lawyer's written conclusions on the merits. 18.  On 18 March 2005 the County Court, by a final decision, upheld the appeal by the town council and ordered the continuation of the execution by seizure up to ROL 190,836,157. Invoking Article 3712 § 2 of the CCP, the court found unlawful the judgment of the first-instance court, which had awarded to the applicant company, at the same time, amounts in respect both of the rate of inflation and of loss of profit or any benefit, considering that the loss of profit or any benefit from an amount of money was precisely the rate of inflation. Therefore, it updated the remainder in accordance with inflation, without awarding loss of profit or any benefit in addition. 19.  On 28 October 2005 the applicant's representative lodged a criminal complaint against the mayor, alleging abuse of authority. On 2 February 2007 the public prosecutor decided that there were no grounds which would justify initiating a criminal action against the mayor. 20.  On 9 June 2008 the Ariceştii Rahtivani town council informed the Government Agent that all the amounts stipulated in the judgments had been paid to the applicant company and that the town council had no financial obligation towards the applicant company. 21.  According to a certificate delivered by the bailiff on 17 February 2009, the debt mentioned by the judgments of 28 August 2001 and 18 January 2002 was paid by 9 April 2004. Further, the amount mentioned by the final decision of 18 March 2005 was paid on 14 July 2005. However, the enforcement fees had been deducted from that last amount and therefore there remained an amount of 7,720 new Romanian lei (RON) to be recovered.