CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 September 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15741/21 LTD ‘RAINDI 1’ against Georgia lodged on 13 March 2021 communicated on 31 August 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the partial non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 15 June 2001, according to which a formerly wholly State-owned joint-stock company failed to fulfil certain contractual obligations in favour of the applicant company, a Limited Liability Company registered in Georgia. The applicant company complains about the delay in the enforcement and the alleged lack of an effective remedy in that regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     To what extent are the acts and the omissions of which the applicant company complains in the present cases attributable to the State? Namely, should the liability of the respondent State in the present case engage the same sort of responsibility as in cases of private companies or State companies (see, mutatis mutandis, Khachatryan v. Armenia , no. 31761/04, §   54, 1 December 2009, with further references therein, and Marinković v.   Serbia , no. 5353/11, §§ 38-39, 22 October 2013)?   2.     Was the partial non-enforcement   of the Supreme Court’s final judgment of 15   June 2001 contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   3.     Did the applicant company have at its disposal effective domestic remedies for its complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?