5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Tbilisi. 6.  On 8 May 2002 the applicant brought a civil action, claiming back the money which she had lent to a private person on 14 September 1998, further to a note envisaging repayment within two months. 7.  On 22 May 2002 the respondent replied in writing, claiming that she had repaid the debt and that the applicant's action was time-barred under Articles 129 and 130 of the Civil Code (“the CC”). 8.  On 14 June 2002 the Isani-Samgori District Court allowed the applicant's claim at an oral hearing. The court found that the respondent's assertion about payment of the debt was unsubstantiated. It did not reply to the time-bar objection. 9.  On 5 August 2002 the respondent appealed, reiterating, inter alia, that the applicant's action was time-barred.  The latter replied that, in view of the respondent's continuous promises to discharge the debt, she could not have concluded that her rights had been breached between 1998 and 2001. 10.  On 18 September 2002 the Tbilisi Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 June 2002 and decided the case anew, dismissing the applicant's action as time-barred. The appellate court found that the limitation period had started to run from the date of non-compliance with the note of 14 September 1998, that is two months after the loan, on 14 November 1998. It noted that the case materials did not substantiate the applicant's assertion that the respondent had continuously promised to return the money. 11.  On 16 October 2002 the applicant lodged a cassation claim. Referring to various circumstances of the case, she reiterated that the respondent's verbal assurances had prevented her from applying to the court earlier. She consequently claimed that the appellate court had wrongly applied Articles 129 and 130 of the CC. 12.  On 19 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Georgia declared the applicant's cassation claim admissible but decided to dispense with an oral hearing on the merits. Both parties were informed of that decision on 22 November 2002. On the same day, the cassation claim was forwarded to the respondent for comments. No reply was forthcoming from the latter. 13.  On 6 February 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation claim. Endorsing the facts of the case as established by the appellate court, the cassation court found that the disputed Articles 129 and 130 of the CC had been correctly interpreted and applied in the appellate judgment of 18 September 2002 and that, consequently, there was no ground, under Article 393 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to quash it.