6.  The applicant is a privately owned commercial company, Regent Engineering International Limited, registered in Victoria (the Seychelles). The company’s actual address is in London (United Kingdom). It was represented before the Court by its director, Mr Yuriy Portnik, who resides in London. 7.  In December 1998 COM s.r.o. (“COM”), a limited liability company registered in Prague (Czech Republic) instituted proceedings in the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine (Міжнародний комерційний арбітражний суд при Торгівельно-Промисловій палаті України – “the Arbitration Tribunal”) against an open joint-stock company, Oriana, seeking an award for breach of contract. In particular, COM claimed that Oriana, a company registered in the city of Kalush (Ivano-Frankivsk Region), with 99.9% of its shares owned by the State, had failed to comply with its contractual obligations concerning the processing of raw materials. 8.  On 23 December 1998 the Arbitration Tribunal made an arbitration award (case AC no. 142y/98) ordering the Oriana company to pay COM the amount of 2,466,906.47 United States dollars (USD) in compensation. 9.  On 19 July 1999 COM lodged an application with the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Arbitration Court (“the Regional Arbitration Court”) seeking a ruling that COM was a creditor in relation to the Oriana company, on the basis of the 23 December 1998 award. 10.  On 2 August 1999 the Kalush State Bailiffs’ Service of the Ministry of Justice (“the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings against Oriana in order to collect the debt from it as ordered by the Arbitration Tribunal. These enforcement proceedings were joined to the other enforcement proceedings that were pending against Oriana. 11.  On 16 October 1999 the Regional Arbitration Court rejected the applicant company’s request to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against Oriana. 12.  On 18 and 21 October 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated the attachment of the property owned by Oriana. On 13 December 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service quashed the decision on the attachment of Oriana’s assets. 13.  On 14 December 1999 the property owned by Oriana was attached again. On 16 December 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service decided to sell some of the property that had been attached (the Oriana company’s polymerisation workshop). 14.  On 20 September 2000 COM again requested the Regional Arbitration Court to institute bankruptcy proceedings against Oriana. It also sought a ruling including it on the list of Oriana’s creditors. 15.  Between 1999 and 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service took a number of measures to obtain payment of the debts accumulated by Oriana. In particular, it sent payment orders to the debtor’s bank, seized its assets, prohibited the unauthorised sale of property belonging to Oriana and attempted to sell some of the company’s property in order to pay its debts. It also attached the Oriana company’s bank accounts and its shares (including the shares which Oriana owned in the Lukor company). 16.  At the same time, the enforcement proceedings were suspended several times because Oriana contested the bailiffs’ actions before the courts and because its numerous creditors filed applications with the court seeking an insolvency order in respect of the company. 17.  On 18 September 2002 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Commercial Court (formerly the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Arbitration Court) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against Oriana. These proceedings are still pending. 18.  On 22 January 2003 COM requested the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Commercial Court to include it on the list of creditors of the Oriana company. 19.  On 10 February 2003 the applicant company concluded a contract with COM concerning the transfer of the latter’s right to claim the debt awarded by the Arbitration Tribunal on 23 December 1998. 20.  On 8 June 2004 the applicant company and COM requested that the Arbitration Tribunal recognise the applicant company as the creditor in the arbitration proceedings against Oriana on the basis of the above-mentioned contract. On 21 June 2004 the President of the Arbitration Tribunal dismissed their request, stating that the Arbitration Tribunal had been dissolved after having made the award of 23 December 1998. 21.  On 9 July 2004 the applicant company and COM requested that the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) declare the applicant company to be legally entitled to the debt awarded to COM by the Arbitration Tribunal on 23 December 1998. 22.  On 16 July 2004 the applicant company and COM requested the Bailiffs’ Service to change the creditor in the enforcement proceedings on the basis of the contract. 23.  On 9 September 2004 the applicant company and COM requested the Court of Appeal to declare that the applicant company was the Oriana company’s creditor and to substitute the applicant company for COM as a party to the enforcement proceedings on the same grounds as mentioned above. 24.  On 10 September 2004 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant company’s request. It declared the applicant company to be Oriana’s creditor in respect of the debt of USD 2,466,906.47 resulting from the arbitration award of 23 December 1998. 25.  On 18 November 2004 the applicant company and COM requested the Bailiffs’ Service to substitute the applicant company for COM in the enforcement proceedings against Oriana. 26.  On 9 December 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service substituted the applicant company for the original creditor in the enforcement proceedings on the basis of the ruling of 10 September 2004. 27.  On 29 December 2005 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Commercial Court (“the Regional Commercial Court”) ruled that the Bailiffs’ Service had to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. 28.  On 30 December 2005 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writs of enforcement to Oriana’s property administrator (розпорядник майна). 29.  On 23 January 2006 the applicant company requested the Regional Commercial Court to amend the list of Oriana’s creditors and to include it on this list on the basis of the contract of 10 February 2003 and the ruling of the Court of Appeal of 10 September 2004. 30.  On 6 February 2006 the Regional Commercial Court allowed the applicant company’s request and ordered that the administrator of the Oriana company’s property make the relevant amendments to the list of creditors. 31.  On 27 February 2006 the applicant company requested to be informed whether the Bailiffs’ Service had substituted it for COM in the list of creditors in the enforcement proceedings against Oriana. 32.  The enforcement proceedings are still pending.