charge”, it does not follow that the Article has no application to pre-trial proceedings.

At the same time, had the applicant company asked the courts to proceed in the absence of the defendant, it risked seeing the case sent back for a re-trial because examination in the absence of the parties

    Pre-trial detention 26.

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Croatia - 51198/08 Judgment 25.4.2013 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Conviction based on key pre-trial witness statements retracted before trial court: violation &#

These points could have been determined by the criminal court only at the trial stage of the proceedings.

These points could have been determined by the criminal court only at the trial stage of the proceedings.

On 18 September 2008 the investigating judge took the applicant’s statement and ordered his pre-trial detention.

at jury tampering” had taken place during the trial.

In the present case, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was broken into two non-consecutive periods.

witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.

Consequently, pre ‑ trial detention may not exceed 100   days until a first trial court hearing.

These trials, known as “Diplock trials”, were conducted by single judges sitting without juries.

Accordingly, he asked the trial court to order the applicant’s detention during the trial.

The hearing of both experts by the trial court did not resolve the divergence in their opinion. In that situation, the trial court was required to call new experts.

    The conduct of trial proceedings is governed by sections 226 to 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Strafprozessordnung ). 15.

       On the first day of the trial the applicant's lawyers made an application to the trial judge stating that following the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in

Moreover, the leader of the PKK had confirmed the veracity of that statement during his trial on 1 June 1999. 12.

The mere fact that the president of the trial panel had ruled on the appellant’s pre-trial detention is not a reason for excluding that judge from the trial ...