4.  In 1997 the Vilnius City tax authorities investigated the applicant company’s book-keeping. On 21 April 1997 they drew up a report in which the results of the investigation were recorded. 5.  From 21 April 1997 to May 1997 the tax authorities conducted a further investigation into the applicant company’s accounting practices. On 27 May 1997 the Vilnius City tax authority drafted a supplement to the report of 21 April 1997. The report stated that the company’s book-keeping was fraudulent. The tax authorities fined the applicant company in the amount of 4,044,643 Lithuanian litai (LTL, about 1,171,409 euros (EUR)), which corresponded to 25% of the company’s annual income. In addition, the law enforcement authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the company’s director and chief financial officer. 6.  Refusing to pay the fine, on 18 September 1997 the applicant company instituted court proceedings. 7.  On 23 December 1997 the Vilnius City First District Court granted the applicant company’s action. The Vilnius City tax authority appealed, and on 10 April 1998 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the lower court’s decision, returning the case for a fresh examination. The court noted that additional evidence had to be established. 8.  On 13 January 1999 the law enforcement institutions, who had been investigating the criminal case against the company’s director and chief financial officer, commissioned the Department of Revisions to carry out an expert examination of the company’s documents. 9.  On 16 May 2000 the Vilnius City First District Court granted the applicant company’s action. On 26 June 2000 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision. On 20 December 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions on the ground that not all the relevant circumstances had been established. In particular, the lower courts had failed to obtain the results of the above mentioned expert examination, those results being necessary to rule on the lawfulness of the tax authorities’ decision to fine the applicant company. The Supreme Court returned the case for fresh examination. 10.  As transpires from the minutes of the hearing of the Vilnius City First District Court of 31 May 2001, the applicant company’s representative requested that court to stay the proceedings pending the result of the expert examination of the company’s documents. The Vilnius City tax authority’s representative did not object to that demand. Noting the Supreme Court’s instruction to the same effect, the Vilnius City First District Court granted an adjournement. 11.  Having finished the expert examination, on 6 September 2002 the Department of Revisions drew up the report and on 14 February 2003 submitted it to the Vilnius City First District Court. On 17 February 2003 the investigators informed the court that they had discontinued criminal proceedings against the company’s director and chief financial officer. 12.  On 6 March 2003 the court proceedings resumed. 13.  On 17 March 2003 the tax authority reduced the fine to the amount of LTL 808,929 (approximately EUR 231,122 or 5% of the company’s annual income) in the light of amendments to the tax legislation. 14.  On 14 April 2003 the Vilnius City First District Court dismissed the applicant company’s action. It established that a significant part of the applicant company’s books were damaged or missing, and that the records of financial transactions had been deleted from its databases. The court concluded that the tax authorities had been right to impose a fine on it. The court further observed that the expert report of 6 September 2002 which the Department of Revisions had drawn up was in essence related to other violations, namely double book-keeping, which had not been the subject matter of the tax dispute at issue. Moreover, the expert examination was not conclusive, since the experts had not received all necessary documents. Therefore the court did not base its reasoning on that expert report. 15.  On 7 August 2003 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision. By a ruling of 28 October 2003, the Supreme Court refused to hear the applicant company’s cassation appeal, holding that it raised no important legal issues.