FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7467/06
by Valeriu AVRAMENKO
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and 
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
 The applicatio n was lodged by Mr Valeriu Avramenko, a Moldovan national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bălţi. He was represented before the Court by Mr F. Nagacevschi from “Lawyers for Human Rights”, a non-governmental organisation based in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
On February 2007 the Court adopted a judgment in the case of Avramenko v. Moldova(no. 29808/02). In that case the Court found a violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the failure to enforce the final judgment of 26 June 2002 in the applicant’s favour. Court reserved the issue under Article 41 of the Convention.
On 8 December 2008  the President of the Chamber to which the present case has been allocated decided to communicate the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the re-opening of his case by the Supreme Court of Justice.
 On  11 and 13 November 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to the above-cited application no. /02, as well as the present application (see for more details Avramenko v. Moldova (just satisfaction), no. /02, 26 January 2010).
THE LAW
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in so far as it concerns the instant application. 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In 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.
	Fatoş Aracı	Nicolas Bratza
	Deputy Registrar	President