CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s5B5FB007 { width:191.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 24684/11 Rashid MELIKSETYAN against Armenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Kristina Pardalos, President,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Johannes Silvis, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 2011, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Rashid Meliksetyan, is an Armenian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Yerevan. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Grigoryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. 2.     The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 23 March 2010 ordering his reinstatement in his previous position at the State Revenue Committee. 4.     On 28 December 2013 the Court received a letter from the Government stating that the applicant did not wish to pursue his application as a result of a friendly settlement agreement signed on 8 November 2013 between him and the Chief of Staff of the State Revenue Committee. Copy of the mentioned friendly settlement agreement was attached to the letter, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “The State Revenue Committee assumes an obligation to make a payment in the amount of 11,701,816 Armenian Drams (AMD) to the bank account submitted by the applicant for lost earnings for the period between 9 July 2009 and 1 December 2013. The applicant renounces his claim to be reinstated in the position of deputy head of the Kotayk Regional Unit of the State Revenue Committee for the period between 9   July 2009 and 1 December 2013. In case equivalent position is not offered from 1 December 2013 until 26 June 2014 (the attainment of retirement age), the Committee undertakes to make a monthly payment to the applicant for forced absence according to the decision of the Department for Enforcement of Judicial Acts no. 01/11-3913/11 on recommencing the enforcement proceedings”. 5.     On 15 January 2014 the Court received a letter from the applicant stating that he agreed to waive any further claims against Armenia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He submitted a copy of the above friendly settlement agreement. THE LAW 6.     The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, the Court considers that it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list of cases based on Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Marialena Tsirli   Kristina Pardalos Deputy Registrar   President