issued by the Registrar of the Court  
no. 216  
15.03.2011  
Judgments1 concerning Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary  
Romania, Russia and Turkey  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine  
judgments.  
Repetitive cases2 and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding  
indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments available only in  
French are indicated with an asterisk (*).  
Caush Driza v. Albania (application no. 10810/05)  
The applicant, Çaush Driza, is an Albanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in  
Fier (Albania). His case concerned the non-enforcement of a final court decision  
awarding compensation in-kind to him and his siblings for the value of a plot of land  
owned by the family, which the authorities had confiscated in 1947. Relying on  
Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and  
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on  
Human Rights, he complained that the proceedings had been unfair and that the  
authorities had failed to enforce the final decision in his favour.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)  
Violation of Article 13  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Just satisfaction: dismissed. The State authorities should secure the enforcement of  
the final court decision in the applicant’s favour.  
Marinov v. Bulgaria (no. 36103/04)  
The applicant, Georgi Marinov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1924 and lives in  
Brestovitza (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and  
Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, he complained that between  
1992, when a plot of agricultural land expropriated in the 1970s was returned to him,  
and 2001, when the return of the whole plot was entered into the land register, he had  
been unable to use the land or dispose of it.  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Just satisfaction: 1,200 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs  
and expenses)  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month  
period following a judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber  
of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,  
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
2 In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the  
Convention.  
   
Begu v. Romania (no. 20448/02)*  
The applicant, Ion Begu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in  
Caracal (Romania). In his capacity as an officer of the criminal investigation department,  
he was suspected of having solicited money from a person suspected of fraud and false  
imprisonment to spare him from being remanded in custody. The applicant complained  
about the proceedings instituted against him for accepting bribes, following which he was  
sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 §§ 2, 3 and 4 (right to liberty  
and security), he complained that he had not been informed of the reasons for his  
arrest, that he had not been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised  
by law to exercise judicial power – particularly because his pre-trial detention had been  
extended by military judges – and that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and  
excessively lengthy. Under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (c) (right to a fair hearing), he  
complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, alleging in  
particular that the military court and the military court of appeal were not independent  
and impartial tribunals because they were attached to the Ministry of Defence; that his  
right to be presumed innocent had been infringed on account of statements made by the  
Prime Minister during a teleconference on “discipline in the Romanian police”; and, that  
the prosecuting authorities had compelled him to be assisted by a State-appointed  
lawyer during a body search, despite the fact that he had asked to be represented by a  
lawyer of his choosing. The applicant also complained, under Article 8 (right to respect  
for private life), of the interception at the police headquarters of his conversation with  
the person suspected of fraud and false imprisonment. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol  
No. 1 (protection of property), he further submitted that items placed under seal by the  
authorities during a search of his home had not subsequently been returned to him.  
Violation of Article 5 § 3  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Just satisfaction: EUR 5,200 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and  
expenses)  
Shandrov v. Russia (no. 15093/05)  
The applicant, Dmitriy Shandrov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and lives in  
Raduzhnyy (Moscow Region, Russia). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he  
complained that he had not been given an opportunity to attend an appeal hearing in a  
case in which he had sought compensation from the local authorities for injuries he had  
sustained during a hostage-taking incident in May 2003.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)  
Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary  
damage  
Repetitive cases  
The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.  
Sizov v. Russia (no. 33123/08)  
Yoldaş and Others v. Turkey (nos. 23706/07, 37912/07, 43801/07, 54514/07,  
56503/07, 1033/08, 1522/08 and 2635/08)*  
These cases concerned the applicants’ complaints concerning the excessive length of  
their pre-trial detention on charges of having set fire to three cars (first case), and for  
belonging to an armed illegal organisation (second case). They relied on Article 5 § 3  
(right to liberty and security). The applicants in the case of Yoldaş and Others also  
relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).  
Violation of Article 5 § 3 – Mr Sizov and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th  
applicants in Yoldaş and Others  
2
Violation of Article 6 § 1 – 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th applicants in Yoldaş  
and Others  
Length-of-proceedings cases  
In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length  
of (non-criminal) proceedings.  
Gávris v. Hungary (no. 33723/06)  
Köteles v. Hungary (no. 9271/07)  
László Molnár v. Hungary (no. 41063/07)  
Violation of Article 6 § 1 – all three cases  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its  
Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS  
feeds.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)  
Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
3