4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest. 5.  On 21 May 1999, he signed a contract for services with the National Association of Securities Dealers, a private enterprise (“the Association”). 6.  On 18 July 2000 he notified the Association of his intention to terminate the contract from 5 August 2000, invoking the Association's non‑compliance with its contractual obligations. 7.  On 13 November 2000, the applicant lodged with the Bucharest County Court an action against the Association seeking compensation for pecuniary damage caused by the latter's failure to fulfil its contractual obligations. 8.  Before the County Court, the Association asked to have the contract declared null and void on the ground that the procedure for the validation of the contract had not been carried out in conformity with its own statutes, this having as result the fact that the contract was not legally binding on it. The applicant contested this argument. 9.  In a judgment of 7 June 2001, the County Court found the contract to be valid and, based on an expert opinion, awarded the applicant 129,648 US dollars (USD) in compensation, USD 8,330 by way of penalties and 96,413,000 Romanian lei (ROL) for court fees.
According to the applicable law, this judgment was enforceable. 10.  In a final decision of 5 November 2001, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the Association and confirmed the judgment. 11.  On 22 January 2002, the applicant, who had instituted proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of 7 June 2001, received ROL 440,000,000 from the Association.
This sum is still in the applicant's possession although proceedings for its recovery have been started by the Association in 2005 and are still pending with the domestic courts. 12.  On 5 December 2001, the Procurator‑General, at the Association's request, lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Justice to have both the judgment of 7 June 2001 and the final decision of 5 November 2001 quashed (“recurs în anulare”) on the ground that the two courts which decided on the case had committed a serious breach of the law when examining the legality of the parties' contract. 13.  On 18 April 2002, the Supreme Court postponed the pronouncement of the final decision until 29 May 2002.
The decision was eventually adopted on 5 June 2002. The Supreme Court allowed the application, quashed the final decision of 5 November 2001 and sent the case back to the Bucharest Court of Appeal for a fresh examination on the merits, on the ground that the two courts had not examined whether the contract was valid and binding on both parties and whether the applicant's initial action could still be allowed in the light of the termination of the contract by the applicant on 5 August 2000. 14.  In an interlocutory judgment of 13 November 2002, the Court of Appeal asked the applicant to supplement the court fees by ROL 18,231,600 which he did on 10 December 2002. 15.  In a final decision of 12 March 2003, the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the Association's appeal, quashed the judgment of 7 June 2001 and dismissed the applicant's action on the ground that while the contract was valid, the conditions for engaging the Association's responsibility for paying damages were not met. It also ordered the applicant to pay the Association ROL 32,109,680 in court fees.