It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 §   1). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.

    On the same date M. gave written explanations to the Kyiv District Prosecutor’s Office with her account of the events, which was the same as before (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above). 18 .

of Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with joinder of cases relating to the same accused.

His pre-trial detention therefore lasted for one year, five months and eight days. 79.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 §   1). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

On 5   November 1998 this request was rejected by the same court after it had examined the case on its merits, by a majority of four to one.

The investigation, during which all the accused were questioned, lasted five years.

Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits at the same time as the admissibility. THE FACTS A.     The circumstances of the case 4.

Between May and September 2006, the Chamber gave the same judgment in the other applications, merely mentioning its conclusion of 1 May 2006.

On the same day the Tsentralnyy district prosecutor’s office issued the warning in question to two of the organisers, including the applicant.

By the same judgment the court ruled to rectify the records in his work book about the date of his dismissal. 8.

At the same time, the charge of leaving a person in danger after the accident was dropped. 29.

day and at the same time. 14 .

    The Court observes that the two applications raise the same legal issue. It therefore decides to join them. 17.

  On the same date he ruled that the Commission’s memorial in reply should be filed by 1 September 1967 at the latest.

On the same day the investigator rejected this complaint as unsubstantiated. 33.

The Court must therefore ascertain whether the two applications brought before it by the applicant relate essentially to the same person, the same facts and the same complaints (see, mutatis mutandis ,

    Later that day, the applicant was also taken to the Emergency Department of the same hospital where he was examined and treated by the same on-call doctor.

    The applicants submitted that the criminal case against them had lasted too long, in breach of Article 6 § 1. 32.

At the same time, R.K.’s statement made at the pre-trial stage had carried at least significant weight for the applicant’s conviction and its admission might have handicapped the defence.