5.  The applicant company is a private insurance company registered in Moldova. 6.  On 7 May 1999 the applicant company signed an insurance contract with a company, C. The insurance contract covered goods which were to be transported to the Russian Federation. 7.  On 9 May 1999 the transported goods were stolen in Ukraine. On 27 July 1999 company C. assigned its insurance claim to a bank, M., which subsequently instituted court proceedings against the applicant company. The bank sought a court order obliging the applicant company to pay it 901,853 Moldovan lei (MDL) to cover the amount of the insured sum, pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. 8.  By a final judgment of 14 July 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the applicant company to pay the bank MDL 882,588 in respect of pecuniary damage (MDL 730,000 for the insured sum and MDL 152,588 for loss of profit). It also ordered the applicant company to pay the bank the amount of MDL 40,584 in court fees. No other claims in respect of costs and expenses were submitted by M. at this or the previous stage of the proceedings. 9.  On 4 August 2005 the bank lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice an application under Article 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an amendment to the final judgment of 14 July 2005. It argued that in its judgment of 14 July 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice had erroneously awarded M. only MDL 882,588, whereas the sum originally in dispute was MDL 901,853. On that occasion it did not submit any claims relating to legal fees. The applicant company disputed the bank’s action. 10.  On 11 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the bank’s application under Article 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure and awarded the bank MDL 901,853. 11.  The applicant company appealed against that judgment. It claimed that Article 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been misused by the Supreme Court of Justice and that the judicial formation which examined the bank’s application under Article 249 was not a tribunal established by law since the rules concerning the formations of judges examining such applications had not been observed. However, its appeal was dismissed on 20 October 2005 by the Supreme Court of Justice. This decision was final. 12.  On 9 February 2006 the bank lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice another application under Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a supplementary judgment which would cover the remainder of the costs and expenses that it had incurred. It referred to previously submitted payment orders confirming the payment of MDL 94,605 in respect of court fees. It asked the Supreme Court to award it MDL 54,021 in addition to the sum of MDL 40,584 awarded by the judgment of 14 July 2005. The applicant company opposed this claim and argued, inter alia, that there was no legal ground for delivering a supplementary judgment under Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13.  On 21 March 2006 company C., which was not a party in the main proceedings, lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a similar application under Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure asking for a supplementary judgment which would cover the costs and expenses allegedly borne by it, amounting to MDL 171,853. It invoked as a legal ground for the application an agreement between the bank and itself, signed on 17 March 2006, by which the bank had assigned to company C. its claim in respect of the legal fees incurred during the proceedings. According to the documents submitted, the bank had paid to a law firm, Z., the amount which it claimed. The applicant company opposed this claim and argued in its written submissions of 23 March 2006 that there was no legal ground for re-examining the case. 14.  On 30 March 2006 a panel of the Supreme Court of Justice examined both requests under Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It found that, on the basis of several payment orders submitted by the bank in the main proceedings, the bank had spent MDL 94,604 on court fees. Accordingly, it upheld the bank’s action and awarded it an additional MDL 54,021 (3,246 euros (EUR)). It also found that on 3 March 2006 the bank had paid legal fees to the law firm Z., in respect of the bank’s legal representation in the main proceedings, amounting to MDL 171,853. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld company C.’s application in part and ordered the applicant company to pay it MDL 91,000 (EUR 5,886) in legal fees. This decision was final and enforcement warrants were issued. 15.  On 3 and 30 May 2006 the judgments were enforced.