THIRD SECTION

Application no. 41504/06 LLC KERAMOS against Georgia lodged on 22 August 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Keramos , is a limited liability company registered in Georgia . It is represented before the Court by Mr P. Gomelauri and Mr N. Danelia , lawyers practising in Tbilisi.

A. The circumstances of the case

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 13 March 2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the Central Society of Consumers ’ Cooperatives (“the CSCC”) seeking the payment of a debt in the amount of 11 000 000 USD. The applicant claimed, on the basis of a notary-certified declaration that the debt had been recognised by the CSCC; it, therefore, requested the court to apply simplified proceeding under Articles 302 and 306 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia.

3 . Between 2003 and 2006 court hearings, upon the applicant ’ s requests, were postponed repeatedly. On 15 May 2006 the Tbilisi City Court rejected the applicant ’ s request, concluding that the CSCC ’ s declaration on debt recognition had not been duly certified. In particular, it stated:

“According to Article 305 § 1 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, the court shall reject the applicant ’ s request for debt payment, if the latter does not meet the requirements enshrined in Articles 302-303 ... of the Code.

In the case at hand, the submitted declaration on debt recognition (11 000 000 USD) by the Central Society of Consumers ’ Cooperatives (“the CSCC”) has not been duly certified as envisaged in Article 303 § 2 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia.”

4 . At it appears from the case file, during the proceedings the domestic court forwarded the applicant ’ s claim to the respondent party for its comments. The latter maintained in reply that the declaration concerned had been forged. The court decided the case without allowing the applicant to file a rebuttal to the CSCC ’ s reply. No appeal lay against the 15 May 2006 court decision.

5 . In the meantime, on 6 March 2006 the applicant applied to the same court for the attachment, by way of interim measure, of the assets of CSCC. On 8 May 2006 the court rejected the applicant ’ s request as unsubstantiated. The refusal was confirmed by the appeal court on 12 October 2006.

B. Relevant domestic law

6 . According to Chapter XXXIV of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, simplified proceedings shall apply to cases concerning uncontested debt claims. The summary nature of the proceedings concerned does not provide per se for an exchange of memorials. The court may reject a request and refuse the issuance of a payment order if the request is unsubstantiated. All documents submitted in support of the request have to be certified.

7 . If the court issues a payment order against the respondent, the latter may appeal the decision within ten days of notification.

COMPLAINT

8 . The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic court ’ s decision of 15 May 2006 had been arbitrary a nd contrary to the fact and that the domestic court had not followed the domestic procedure correctly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In the proceedings between the applicant and the CSCC, did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular,

- Was the principle of equality of arms respected given that the applicant had had no opportunity to challenge the respondent ’ s submissions?

- Did the domestic court sufficiently reason its conclusion that the declaration on debt recognition had not been duly certified?