ill and his office so informed the trial court.

The case was then committed for trial before the Audiencia Provincial .

(b)     Was the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention?

Background information The first clinical trial 7 .

On 8   December 2006 the Leninskiy District Court, Orenburg detained the applicant pending trial. His pre-trial detention was extended on numerous occasions.

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

    The national courts allowed the pre-trial statements to be read out and admitted these statements as evidence without examination of the witnesses during trials.

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

On the same day, the three-judge panel confirmed the indictment and preferred the case to trial.

(b)     Was the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention?

FRANÇAIS _________________________ LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE COMMERCIALE, FINANCIÈRE ET ÉCONOMIQUE, a rendu la décision suivante : Vu le pourvoi formé par la société Nouvelle distillerie tropicale

Le 1er août 2002, la Sarl Bureau de Vente Directe (ci-après la Sarl BVD) a vendu à la Sarl Bamex Bois Tropicaux une moulurière de marque Weinig et une ponceuse à large bande de marque Perfect.

their absence at the trial.

The trial court refused to admit any of the applicant’s proposed submissions.

The trial judge in that case was Judge Y. who was also the trial judge in the applicants' case.

    The applicant’s pre-trial detention and trial On 29 February 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police.

The trial took place on 16 and 17 January 2019. The Audiencia Provincial stated at the outset that no report has established the applicant’s inability to understand the trial and to answer questions.

No good reason had been shown for the non-attendance of those witnesses at trial.