GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 3 (a) a house located at 54 Mazniashvili Street, Batumi; (b) a house located at 13 Griboyedov Street, Batumi; (c) the first floor of a house located at 60 Gorgasali Street, Batumi; (d) a share in the capital of the Sanapiro Hotel, Kobuleti; (e) a Mercedes car; (f) a flat located at 1 Ninoshvili Street, Kobuleti. 15. The second applicant’s property included: (g) two guest houses located at 32 April 9th Street, Kobuleti. 16. The third applicant’s property included: (h) a house located at 245 Aghmashenebeli Street, Kobuleti. 17. The fourth applicant’s property included: (i) a flat located at 58b Gorgasali Street, Batumi; (j) a flat located at 4-6 Gudiashvili Street, Batumi; (k) a flat located at 20 H. Abashidze Street, Batumi; (l) a house located at 6 General A. Abashidze Close; (m) a house located at 186 Aghmashenebeli Street, Kobuleti. B. The proceedings for forfeiture of property before the court of first instance 18. On 30 August 2004 the Ajarian Supreme Court accepted the public prosecutor’s request for an examination on the merits. It transmitted the prosecutor’s brief together with all the supporting documents to the applicants, inviting them to submit their written replies and attend an oral hearing scheduled for 7 September 2004. 19. As attested by the relevant postal acknowledgements of receipt, the Ajarian Supreme Court’s subpoenas were duly served at all four applicants’ home addresses, but only the second applicant, represented by legal counsel, filed written comments on 6 September 2004. 20. The second applicant submitted that the property mentioned at (b) above in fact belonged to him and not to the first applicant. To prove it he produced a contract of sale dated 2 December 1997, between himself and a certain G.V., plus a document from the Land Registry. He stated that he had purchased the property for EUR 10,174. His father-in-law, with whom the second applicant and his wife lived after they married, had helped him purchase the property. He produced a certificate from the bank stating that his father-in-law had taken out the loan, as well as statements by different witnesses. 21. The second applicant further explained that the property mentioned at (f) above belonged to Mr N.U., who was neither a close relative nor in any way connected with the first applicant. It was therefore not subject to confiscation. 22. As to the property mentioned at (g) above, the second applicant alleged that the first applicant had had no part in purchasing or renovating it