On 23 November 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.

There were no elements to cast doubt on the forensic doctor’s report and his recusal was not called for. The applicant had had the opportunity to question him but had failed to do so.

    However, Law no. 61 of 1989 set out, inter alia , a limit to the compensation claimable by the owner entitling him to a sum equal to the rent paid by the tenant at the time of the expiration

It also referred to the need to conclude the proceedings and in particular to ensure that the numerous co-accused and witnesses were questioned. 12.

THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

and are reasonable as to quantum (see Iatridis v.

in tort was an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicants, allowing them to have the violation of the Convention acknowledged, either explicitly or in substance, and to receive

which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention.

    A judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore

to third parties. 2.

rights or their entitlement to obtain a decision on their restitution claims, had amounted to a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

With regard to the refusal to hear a witness of the defence, it has to be determined whether the request to examine a witness was sufficiently reasoned and relevant to the subject matter of the accusation

, without referring to the court in which he held office or to other judges or prosecutors, was not sufficient to find that he had breached his duty of discretion.

to order its return to her.

transfer to State ownership. 11.

The Court received friendly-settlement declarations under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Romania in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject to an

    Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Rezmiveș and Others , cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums

to the applicant (see Ananyev and Others v.

    Decides to join the applications;   2.