4.  The applicant company is a joint stock company based in Ploieşti. 5.  On 24 June 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice, by a final decision, ordered the S.C. Safa Impex S.R.L. company (“the S. company”) to pay the applicant company 533,683,270 old Romanian lei (ROL) as due payment resulting from a contract they had entered into and ROL 21,254,421 for the costs of proceedings. The court based its findings on an expert report which had updated the due amount on the basis of the inflation rate. 6.  In August and September 1998 the S. company sold a part of its movable and immovable property to the S.C. Safa Comimpex S.R.L. company, which had as manager the wife of one of the two managers of the S. company. 7.  Following refusal of payment by the S. company, on 17 September 1998 the applicant company requested the Prahova County Court to enforce that judgment. 8.  On 19 January 1999 the S. company further sold a building to the same SC Safa Comimpex SRL company. 9.  On 10 February 1999 the Ploieşti District Court decided in private to attach the S. company's assets in the T. bank up to the total due amount of ROL 554,937,691. 10.  On 5 April 1999, at the applicant company's request, the Ploieşti District Court upheld that attachment and ordered the bank to transfer that amount into the applicant company's account. An appeal by the bank was dismissed as groundless on 12 October 1999. 11.  On 3 December 1999 the applicant company informed the Prahova County Court that the debtor had taken its money out of the T. bank and requested to continue enforcement by sale by public auction of debtor's immovable and movable property. 12.  On 6 December 1999 the bailiff R. served notice to the S. company to pay the debt. The debtor refused to receive that notice and the bailiff posted it on its door. 13.  On 16 December 1999 the bailiff requested information from the public finance office in respect of S company's movable and immovable property. In the absence of an answer by the finance office, the bailiff renewed that request on 15 February 2000. 14.  On 6 April 2000 the public finance office submitted to the bailiff the debtor's balance sheet. 15.  On 1 May 2000 the S. company sold a vehicle to the wife of one its two managers. 16.  On 18 May 2000 the public finance office informed the bailiff about the S. company's assets, which included a building and four vehicles. Therefore, at an unknown date the bailiff R. seized the four vehicles and on 22 September 2000 he put them on sale by public auction. The sale was scheduled for 13 October 2000. 17.  However, on 13 October 2000, following a visit to the S. company's premises, the bailiff R. certified in an official record that the debtor had sold the four above-mentioned vehicles to the S.C. Safa Comimpex S.R.L. company. The debtor also refused to pay, alleging that it had no other assets and had ceased to function. 18.  It appears from the file that the proceedings brought for the annulment of those sales were dismissed by the courts. 19.  On 9 October 2002, following failure by the bailiff R. to enforce that judgment, the applicant company requested his replacement. The execution file was transferred to the bailiff M. 20.  On 30 October 2002 the bailiff M. requested the Ploieşti District Court to authorise the enforcement and the town council to inform him about the debtor's assets. On 12 November 2002 the court approved the enforcement by an interlocutory decision. By a letter of 18 December 2002 the town council informed the bailiff that the debtor was listed as the owner of two vehicles. 21.  The S. company made an objection to the execution, alleging prescription of the applicant's right to claim enforcement. Eventually, on 25 April 2006 the Ploieşti District Court found that the action had lapsed. 22.  On 2 May 2001 the applicant company lodged a criminal complaint against the two managers of the S. company, submitting that they had sold the company's assets and thus prevented the applicant company to recover the debt. 23.  On 29 November 2001 the public prosecutor found no reasons to start criminal proceedings. 24.  In 2002 the applicant company brought proceedings against the managers of the S. company, to hold them liable for the company's debts. 25.  By an enforceable decision of 10 February 2005 the Prahova County Court allowed that action and ordered the two managers to pay the debt out of their personal property. The court based its findings on an accounting expert report which had found that the two managers of the S. company were at fault for its insolvency and that they had transferred its assets to another company, managed by the wife of one of them. Moreover, the value of those assets had not been updated to their market value and the payment ordered by the judgment of 24 June 1998 had not been recorded in the company's book of accounts. The court concluded that the aim of their entire activity was to avoid paying the debt to the applicant company. 26.  On 7 December 2007 the applicant company requested the bailiff T. to enforce that judgment. According to the applicant, one of the two managers is retired and they also have sold their personal assets. 27.  Two invoices of 26 September and 28 October 2008 certified payment of two instalments of 117 new Romanian lei each. 28.  On 8 November 2002 the applicant company presented a winding-up petition against the S. company. 29.  On 11 December 2002 the Prahova County Court authorised the compulsory liquidation and appointed a trustee. That judgment became final on 24 February 2003. 30.  On 9 February 2005 the S. company was declared bankrupt by the Prahova County Court. The court appointed the same trustee. 31.  The trustee drew up a final report in which she certified that the S. company had no movable or immovable property to be sold. She therefore proposed the court to terminate the bankruptcy proceedings. 32.  On 23 January 2006 the Prahova County Court, by an enforceable decision, terminated the bankruptcy proceedings and ordered that the S. company be struck off the trade register. The court also held that the enforcement of the judgment of 10 February 2005 (see paragraph 25 above) would be carried out according to the Code of Civil Procedure. 33.  According to the applicant company, the amount to which it was entitled was recorded in its book of accounts and thus it had to pay corresponding taxes to the State.