003-3469811-3906157

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)   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   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   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   [email protected] | 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