4.  The applicant company has its headquarters in Rovaniemi. The second applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kauniainen. 5.  The applicant company is a limited liability company, the shares of which are fully owned by the second applicant. The second applicant is the only member of the board of directors of the applicant company. 6.  On 5 December 1997 the Tax Office of Länsi-Suomi (verovirasto, skatteverket) requested that a distraint order be issued and the property of the applicant company seized for the second applicant’s unpaid taxes. The Tax Office had initiated a police investigation which had revealed that the registration documents of the applicant company had been forged. It was assumed that the company had been created in order to protect the second applicant’s business and assets. 7.  On 9 and 10 December 1997 the property of the company was seized in accordance with Chapter 4, section 10 of the Execution Act (ulosottolaki, utsökningslagen), as in force at the relevant time. 8.  On 17 December 1997 the applicant company apparently appealed against the distraint order, arguing that its property could not be seized for the second applicant’s unpaid taxes. The result of the appeal is not known. 9.  On 30 December 1997 the second applicant was declared bankrupt. The property seized prior to the bankruptcy was transferred to the bankruptcy estate on the basis of section 45 of the Bankruptcy Act (konkurssisääntö, konkursstadgan). This terminated the seizure procedure. It was decided on 13 March 1998 that the seized property could be liquidated and it was actually sold in November and December 1998. 10.  On 27 November 1998 the second applicant was convicted for having forged the company registration documents and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. This judgment became final on 31 August 2000. 11.  On 8 December 1998 the applicant company filed an action against the second applicant’s bankruptcy estate and requested the court to order the sequestration of the value of the seized property, which was in the bankruptcy estate’s possession, and to confirm the company’s ownership of this property. 12.  By a decision of 4 June 1999 the Seinäjoki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) refused to apply interim measures. 13.  On 21 March 2001 the District Court dismissed the action without considering the merits. The court found that the seizure of the applicant company’s property had already acquired legal force and that the procedure in that respect had ended. As the value of the property was still in the possession of the bankruptcy estate, it was not too late to determine to whom the property had belonged. The applicant company had been registered in spite of the fact that the registration documents were forged. As the second applicant had acted mala fide, he could not take advantage of the registration and the property in question had thus never been transferred to the company. The second applicant could thus be equated with the company vis-à-vis his debtors. The company was therefore not in need of judicial relief. 14.  On 15 April 2001 the applicant company complained to the Vaasa Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten). 15.  On 14 October 2002 the Appeal Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 21 March 2001 and referred the case back to the District Court. It found that the grounds given by the District Court were not such that it could conclude that the company was not in need of judicial relief. It should not have dismissed the action without considering the merits. 16.  On 8 April 2004 the District Court rejected the applicant company’s complaint. It found that, even though the registration of the company did have a constitutive effect, it could not correct the illegalities committed by the second applicant in the registration procedure. The applicant company was not a separate legal person at the moment when the second applicant was declared bankrupt and the personal property of the second applicant could thus be transferred to his bankruptcy estate. 17.  On 6 May 2004 the applicant company appealed to the Appeal Court, claiming, inter alia, that it had acquired a legal personality and requesting the court to hold an oral hearing. 18.  On 30 July 2004 the Appeal Court decided to apply the filtering procedure and rejected the request for an oral hearing. It upheld the District Court’s judgment without examining the case any further. 19.  On 26 September 2004 the applicant company appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) claiming, inter alia, that the filtering procedure could not be used in the case and that the length of the proceedings was already excessive. 20.  On 11 January 2005 the Supreme Court granted the applicant company leave to appeal. 21.  On 12 April 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the Appeal Court’s decision and referred the case back to it. The court found that, in general, a limited liability company was established by registration. When such a company had been registered, it could be dissolved only in accordance with the Limited Liability Companies Act. The said Act did not contain any provision according to which possible illegalities found after the registration would lead to the invalidity of the registration. Bearing this in mind, the court concluded that the case was not so clear that the conditions for using the filtering procedure were fulfilled. 22.  On 5 June 2006 the Appeal Court held an oral hearing. On 13 July 2006 the Appeal Court quashed the District Court’s judgment of 8 April 2004 as the second applicant’s bankruptcy estate had acknowledged the applicant company’s claim as far as the ownership of the seized property was concerned. The bankruptcy estate was ordered to pay back the value of this property, about 37,800 euros, to the company. 23.  On 11 September 2006 the applicant company appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the estimation of the value of the property had been too low. 24.  On 5 March 2007 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.