DESSAISISSEMENT N° RG 26/01347 - N° Portalis DBV3-V-B7K-XXFC Audience dans le cadre de la mise en état de la Ch civ. 1-4 construction de la cour d'appel de Versailles du 02 Juin 2026 Nous, Fabienne TROUILLER

In the case of an indictment and of a trial, the defendant’s case was examined first by a pre-trial judge and then by a trial court during proceedings which complied with all the requirements of a fair

Furthermore, the trial in August 1999 was halted at the applicant’s request and after the trial in September 1999 the applicant delayed until July 2000 before lodging his appeal.

based on evidence unlawfully obtained at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings.

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 an unspecified date at the commencement of the trial, the applicant submitted before the District Court that some of the materials of the criminal case were illegible, namely his pre-trial testimony

On 9 June 2016 the case was submitted for trial before the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic.

It appears that the applicant’s case went to trial on 15 January 2014.

On 22 September 2010 the pre-trial investigation was completed. On 23 September the applicant and his lawyer started studying the case-file materials.

Subsequently, the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention was prolonged by another two months, until 11 March 2017.

Subsequently the applicants’ pre-trial detention pending investigation was extended twice, each time for one month, with the end date set at 6   January 2007.

His pre-trial detention thus lasted two months. 31.

du Code de la propriété intellectuelle ; Attendu que pour dire le régime de licence légale inapplicable avant le 17 septembre 1998 aux programmes Multiradio et avant le 1er mai 1999 au programme Tropical

    First term of the applicant's pre-trial detention From 5   September 2000 to, as it appears, 11 March 2002 the applicant was held in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having committed

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

(e)     The trial judge’s summing up and the verdict The trial judge’s summing up contained the following directions to the jury.

at the time fit to stand trial.

The trial court had concluded that there had been a serious impediment to A.B. attending the trial owing to his medical treatment.

The applicant’s pre-trial detention 3.