5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Edineț. At the time of the events the applicant was working as a tax inspector at the Edineț tax authority. 6.  On 17 February 2004 Z., the owner of a small shop, lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant. He stated that on an unspecified date he had visited the applicant for the purpose of de-registering his till and closing down his shop. When the applicant compared data in the till’s memory with the shop owner’s books, she found a discrepancy in the figures and told him that he risked incurring a fine. According to Z., the applicant implied to him that the matter could be resolved if he agreed to pay her an amount of money which she wrote on a piece of paper. Z. understood that the applicant was asking for a bribe. 7.  On 17 February 2004, the police organised an undercover operation. They fitted Z. with a wire and instructed him to meet the applicant in her office and give her banknotes marked with special powder. 8.  According to the transcript of the conversation between Z. and the applicant during the police operation, Z. was grateful to the applicant for helping him and offered her a reward, but the applicant refused to accept it. He insisted and asked the applicant “How much?” to which she answered “Nothing”. Z. continued to insist, and said “I do not want you to worry about this. How much?” The applicant did not answer. Z. insisted: “One, two hundred?” but the applicant refused again. Z. then said “At least fifty, please”. The applicant conceded, saying “It’s up to you”. Z. said “If it’s up to me, then at least fifty more”. The applicant said “A painting would be nice”. Z. asked “What painting?” The rest of the conversation is not clear because only Z.’s words are recorded in the transcript, while there is a blank space in respect of the applicant. However, it would appear from Z.’s statements that the applicant finally agreed to accept the money offered by him in order to buy a painting. 9.  Immediately after that, police officers entered and arrested the applicant. They found 200 lei (MDL) (the equivalent of approximately 11 euros (EUR)) marked with special powder in the pocket of her coat, which was hanging in the next office. 10.  In her statements to the police the applicant submitted that on 13 February 2004 Z. had gone to her office for the purpose of de-registering his till. She noted that the last entry in the till’s memory had not been reflected in the shop owner’s books and helped him solve the problem by asking a technician to remove the last entry from the till’s memory. On 17 February 2004 Z. went to her office and offered to pay for her help. She refused but as he kept insisting she eventually agreed to accept from him a painting for the office. After he left she saw MDL 200 on her table and ran after him to give them back; however, she could not find him. She returned to the office to call him on his mobile phone when police officers entered and arrested her. Subsequently, she changed her statements to the effect that after she had refused to take money from Z., on his way out Z. had placed the money in the pocket of her coat, which had been hanging in the next office. She also argued that she had been set up by the police. 11.  In his statements to the police, Z. submitted that he had had a problem with his accounting because he had forgotten to reflect the last entry in the till in the books. Z. told the applicant that he was prepared to reward her for her help, to which she replied that she was afraid of accepting payment because she had already been suspected of bribe taking. Nevertheless, she accepted to help him. Z. left the till with her and sometime later a technician solved the problem. On 17 February 2004 Z. complained to the police and an undercover operation was organised. He then went to the applicant’s office wearing a wire and offered her money. At first she declined his proposal but eventually she accepted to receive a painting for her new office. Z. put MDL 200 on her table but she returned MDL 100 to him. Z. then told her to buy a nice painting and gave her back the MDL 100. She took the money and asked him to accompany her to the market to buy the painting. However, he refused to do so, claiming that he was busy, and left the office. Subsequently, Z. changed his statement to the effect that he had placed the money in the pocket of the applicant’s coat, which had been hanging in another office, and that he did not know whether she had been aware that he had placed the money there. 12.   Four more counts of bribe taking, which had allegedly taken place between 1999 and 2003, were added to the criminal charge against the applicant. They were all based solely on statements of the alleged victims made after the undercover operation of 17 February 2004. 13.  On 28 January 2005 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case against her stated in an interview to a newspaper that the applicant had accepted a bribe. 14.  During the court proceedings the applicant argued, inter alia, that she had been a victim of police entrapment. 15.  On 9 March 2005 the Edinet District Court convicted the applicant of bribe taking in respect of the incident of 17 February 2004 and fined her some EUR 300. In convicting the applicant the court found that Z. had visited her in her office and had placed money in the pocket of her coat, which had been hanging on a coat rack, in exchange for services concerning a till. The court did not examine the applicant’s allegation that she had been the victim of incitement. At the same time the court acquitted the applicant of the other counts of alleged bribe taking. The court found the incriminating statements in respect of those incidents unfounded and/or that they had been extracted by way of pressure by the prosecuting authorities. 16.  The applicant appealed against that judgment and argued, inter alia, that she had been a victim of entrapment. She also argued that the transcript of the conversation between her and Z. had been tampered with because the last part of the recording in which Z. told a police officer that he had planted the money did not appear in the transcript. The prosecutor also appealed, claiming that the penalty was too mild. 17.  On 1 July 2005 the Balti Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal without considering her allegation of entrapment. At the same time the court allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor’s office and changed the penalty to a criminal fine of EUR 1,200 and a three-year suspended sentence. 18.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing, inter alia, that she had been the victim of entrapment. 19.  On 6 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant then lodged an extraordinary appeal, which was allowed by the Supreme Court on 3 April 2006. The Supreme Court of Justice found that no confrontation had been carried out between the applicant and Z. during the proceedings. It therefore set aside its decision of 6 December 2005, quashed the decision of the Balti Court of Appeal of 1 July 2005 and ordered a fresh hearing of the case by the Balti Court of Appeal. 20.  On 20 September 2006 the Balti Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the Edineț District Court of 9 March 2005 and acquitted her on the grounds, inter alia, that there were inconsistencies in Z.’s statements and that there was no evidence to support the allegation that she had been aware that money had been placed in her coat pocket. The court also referred to the transcript of the recording of the encounter between the applicant and Z. and found that the latter had acted as an agent provocateur. 21.  On 16 January 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed an appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor, quashed the decision of the Balti Court of Appeal of 20 September 2006 and ordered it to re-examine the appeals against the judgment of 9 March 2005. 22.  On 21 March 2007 the Balti Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 9 March 2005 and allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor. The court considered that the evidence in its possession indicated the applicant’s guilt “even if the applicant had been provoked by Z”. In particular, the court dismissed the applicant’s contention that she had not been aware that Z. had put money in her coat pocket by referring to the fact that traces of special powder had been found on her hands. The court increased the penalty to a fine of EUR 1,200 and a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment. The applicant was also banned from working for the tax authority for a period of three years. 23.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing, inter alia, that Z. had acted as an agent provocateur and that she had been the victim of entrapment. She also argued that the transcript of her conversation with Z. had been tampered with and submitted that, in view of the absence of the original recording, her conviction could not be based on it. 24.  On 12 September 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law without considering her claim of entrapment.