5.  The applicants, Tiramavia S.R.L., Valan International Cargo Charter S.R.L. and Grixona S.R.L. are companies specialising in air transportation. 6.  Each of the companies had a valid air operator certificate (an “AOC”)[1] issued by the Moldovan Civil Aviation State Authority (the “CASA”). 7.  On 1 June 2007 the CASA issued an order banning all flights of aircraft registered in Moldova to Iraq and Afghanistan, with effect from 15 July 2007. 8.  Between 4 and 8 June 2007, all Moldovan aviation companies were subjected to a check by the European Union Safety Committee. As a result, some irregularities concerning compliance with the European norms in the field of aviation safety were detected. The European Union Safety Committee also found that some aviation companies did not comply with the rule according to which the companies have to have their principal place of business in the state of registration. One of the conclusions set down in the visit report drawn up by the European Union Safety Committee was that the CASA failed to demonstrate the ability adequately to enforce and implement the relevant safety standards. According to the report, the CASA had undertaken to remedy the situation within three months. 9.  In a letter addressed to the CASA by the European Commission on 8 June 2007, the former was asked to require all the companies concerned to present their response to the findings in the report by 22 June 2007 at the latest. The CASA was also informed that the companies concerned would have the possibility of presenting their views orally during the Air Safety Committee meeting of 25 June 2007 in Brussels, at which a decision was to be taken on whether or not to ban those companies from entering European Union airspace. 10.  On 14 June 2007 the CASA sent the applicant companies the EU Safety Committee’s report and informed them that they had until 22 June 2007 to present their comments. 11.  On 18 June 2007 the CASA sent the applicant companies aviation instruction no. 2584 and asked them to present by 21 June 2007 a plan for remedying the irregularities found by the EU Safety Committee. The corresponding plan was sent by the applicant companies to the CASA on 21 June 2007. 12.  Also on 18 June 2007 the CASA sent the applicant companies aviation instruction no. 2585 requesting them to undertake measures with a view to remedying some of the irregularities before 20 July 2007 and other irregularities before 20 September 2007. 13.  On 21 June 2007 the CASA issued order no. 102/GEN withdrawing the applicant companies’ AOCs, and thereby terminating their activity. 14.  In respect of the first applicant company and three other companies which are not applicants in the present case, the reason relied upon by the CASA was that the airport authorities of several European countries had discovered irregularities with their aircraft, some of which had a recurring nature, and that those irregularities had a negative impact on flight security. The CASA did not specify which irregularities it referred to. 15.  As to the second and third companies, the CASA relied on the fact that they flew to destinations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, New Zealand and United Arab Emirates. The CASA argued that those destinations involved security risks and that it had no resources to ensure flight security in those territories. 16.  On 22 June 2007 the applicant companies wrote to the CASA and asked it to reverse its decision on the grounds that it had not explained exactly what irregularities formed the basis for the withdrawal of the AOCs and that the CASA had not afforded them enough time to remedy the alleged irregularities. 17.  The CASA refused to reverse its decision, and on 28 June 2007 the applicant companies challenged it in the Chişinău Court of Appeal. The applicants submitted, inter alia, that according to section 23 of the Law on Civil Aviation, the CASA was entitled to suspend or withdraw the AOCs only if the companies failed to remedy the irregularities found by the CASA within the prescribed time-limit. They also made reference to section RAC‑AOC 0170 from the Regulations in the Field of Civil Aviation according to which an AOC could be revoked only after being initially suspended. Since the CASA had not observed those legal provisions, its actions were unlawful. 18.  On 3 December 2008 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant companies’ action, finding that the CASA had been entitled to withdraw the applicant companies’ AOCs because serious irregularities threatening the safety of the flights had been found in respect of the first applicant company and three other companies, which are not applicants in the present case, and because those companies had failed to remedy those irregularities. The Court of Appeal did not indicate the irregularities to which it referred. The court also found that the other companies had failed to comply with the CASA’s order of 1 June 2007 prohibiting flights to Iraq and Afghanistan as of 15 July 2007. The court did not give an answer to the applicants’ argument concerning the CASA’s failure to observe the provisions of section 23 the Law on Civil Aviation and those of the Regulations in the Field of Civil Aviation. It only stated that the legal basis for the CASA’s decision was section 5 of the Law on Civil Aviation and paragraph (c) of RAC-AOC 0170 from the Regulations in the Field of Civil Aviation. The applicant companies challenged the decision before the Supreme Court of Justice, reiterating inter alia their position concerning the unlawfulness of the challenged decision. 19.  On 29 April 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant companies’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal after finding that the CASA was entitled to revoke the AOCs since the second and third applicant companies had failed to comply with its instructions concerning the ban on all flights of aircraft registered in Moldova to Iraq and Afghanistan, with effect from 15 July 2007. As to the first applicant company, the Supreme Court confirmed the finding of the inferior court that serious irregularities threatening the safety of the flights had been found in respect of it and other companies which are not applicants in the present case and that they had failed to remedy those irregularities. The Supreme Court did not specify which irregularities it referred to and did not address the issue of the unlawfulness of the CASA’s decision.