Art. 6 (3) (c) - absence of confidential exchange with representative during the hearing of the first applicant’s criminal case by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia due to the latter’s participation

be brought to the courthouse. 23 .

C, la société Yves H et Associés, la société MDETC, en la personne de son liquidateur la société Axyme/EMJ représentée par Me Didier Courtoux, M.

In upholding the Regional Court’s detention order, the Supreme Court noted that one of the victims, Mr   Ya.B., had asked for the case to be examined without his participation as he had been afraid

On 28   March 2002 a group of specialists had arrived at the courthouse to examine the applicant, but had been denied access to him.

The applicant's request for participation in the hearing was dismissed, his presence being considered not necessary. His legal counsel was absent as well.

Est sans incidence sur l'engagement solidaire des membres du groupement la circonstance qu'ils n'ont pas participé aux travaux ayant conduit à l'affaissement du dallage du nouveau bâtiment ou qu'aucun

In the applicant’s submission, he also suffered from the conditions of transport: on many occasions, the travel between the facility and the courthouse took 7-8 hours when he was transported in cold vehicles

He could have been transferred to a local detention facility so that transporting him to the courthouse was feasible.

to the courthouse.

Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via

The applicant’s participation in the hearing was ensured by way of videoconference. He was not represented by a lawyer.

On 5   May 2018 at 4 p.m. the police arrested the applicant on the charge of participation in an unauthorised public gathering. He was released at approximately 7.30 p.m.

Subsequently the court disallowed Mr F.’s participation as a witness in this case (see below).

On 10   February 2000 he was taken to IVS-1 for participation in various investigative actions. Between that date and 5 June 2000 he remained in IVS-1.

Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via

    The applicant was notified of the appeal hearing by the medical personnel, but was not transferred from the hospital to the courthouse in order to participate in it.

Mr V. had not seen the applicant and had not been aware of his alleged participation in the robbery. 23.

Upon arrival at the courthouse the applicant was placed in one of the three temporary holding cells ( конвойное помещение ). Cells measured 2.6 m 2 (2 m x 1.3 m) with ceilings 2.5 m high.