5.  The applicant company, Virprod-Lux S.R.L., is a company incorporated in Moldova.
6.  On 13 April 2000 the Tax Authority seized a building from a State‑owned company, company V., on account of taxes which were due.
7.  On 1 October 2000, at the request of the Tax Authority, the building was valued by an estate agency at 352,000 Moldovan lei (MDL).
8.  On 29 January 2001 the Department of Privatisation and Administration of State Property sold the building in question to company B. for MDL 360,500 (approximately 29,678 Euros (EUR), following a public auction.
9.  On 25 April 2003 the applicant company bought the building from company B. for MDL 628,000 (approximately EUR 22,053).
10.  On 29 March 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office initiated court proceedings in which it sought the annulment of both the sale of the building on 29 January 2001 and the subsequent transaction between company B. and the applicant company. It also sought the return of the building to its initial owner, company V. The reason relied upon by the Prosecutor’s General’s Office was that the valuation of the building conducted by the estate agency had not been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law. The applicant company opposed the Prosecutor General’s action and argued, among other things, that it was time-barred.
11.  On 21 August 2007 the Economic Court of Appeal dismissed the Prosecutor General’s action as time-barred. The court held, inter alia, that in accordance with the statute of limitations, the Prosecutor General’s action could not be initiated more than three years after the events in dispute had taken place.
12.  On 11 October 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld an appeal by the Prosecutor General, reversed the judgment of the Economic Court of Appeal, and upheld the action in its entirety. The Supreme Court considered that the Prosecutor General’s action concerned a declaration of the absolute nullity of the contracts in question and that therefore, in accordance with Article 217 of the Civil Code, enacted on 12 June 2003, it could not be limited in time. Following this judgment, the transactions of 29 January 2001 and 25 April 2003 were annulled and each party involved was ordered to return to the other parties whatever they received by virtue of those transactions.
13.  On 7 December 2007 the applicant company lodged a revision request against the above judgment in which it indicated that it had carried out an expert evaluation of the disputed building by an independent expert who determined its value at MDL 8,550,000 (approximately EUR 511,440) after the improvements made by the applicant company to it.
14.  In the meantime, the applicant company did not leave the disputed building because it had its production line there and it needed time and resources to find another suitable building and to move its production line.
15.  Since company V. did not need the disputed building, the applicant company proposed to it and the latter accepted to conclude a friendly settlement agreement in accordance with which company V. agreed that the applicant company would retain ownership of the building in exchange for MDL 325,092 (approximately EUR 19,328).
16.  On 20 March 2008, within the framework of the review proceedings, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the parties’ request to settle the case. It confirmed the friendly settlement agreement between the applicant company and company V., and on that basis it quashed its previous judgment and rejected the Prosecutor General’s action.
17.  It is unclear from the materials of the case and the parties’ submissions whether after the adoption of the judgment of 11 October 2007 by the Supreme Court of Justice, company B. returned to the applicant company the amount received as a result of the transaction of 25 April 2003.