by Margo AVETISYAN
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2009,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mrs Margo Avetisyan, is a Georgian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Tbilisi. She was represented before the Court by Ms Vanda Jijelava and Ms Tamar Shotadze, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
The case concerned the applicant’s dispute with the State over retirement pension arrears. On 9 June 2009 notice of her complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was given to the Government.
On 1 and 5 October 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties. By these declarations, the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Georgia in respect of the facts giving rise to her application against an undertaking by the Government to pay her ex gratia 1,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Georgian laris at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.
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 public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Deputy Registrar President