in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial two police officers on whose written statements his conviction was based     48482/21* 25/

It is not clear from this provision in what procedural form the trial judge should decide on the question of the pre-trial measure, whether it should be, following the general rule contained in the relevant

The applicant was detained pending trial on the same date. 3.     The applicant’s pre-trial detention in respect of proceedings concerning theft 17.

The prosecution and the trial judge agreed that the applicant could go home. On 20 August 1999 the trial judge gave a detailed summing-up to the jury.

If the possibility of bias on the part of a juror comes to the attention of the trial judge in the course of a trial, the trial judge should consider whether there is actual bias or not (a subjective test

Both trials received extensive media coverage. 2.

    On 1 November 2012 the Sevastopol Balaklava District Court (“the   trial court”) committed the applicant for trial and decided that he should remain in custody.

date for a pre-trial conference by 25 December 2012.

the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention.

in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - right to examine police officers whose pre-trial statements were used for convicting the applicant.

the review of the lawfulness of pre-trial detention under Article 5(4) typically takes place.

    Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his pre-trial detention On 31 December 2007 the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court placed the applicant in pre-trial detention.

The trial judge decided to continue the hearing without examining the evidence, considering that the parties had not disputed it at the pre-trial hearing (see the transcript of the trial, p. 7).

    Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention On 15 March 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention

When being questioned as a suspect in the scope of this new case, H.Z. once again retracted her statement made earlier in the trial court and accepted that her second pre-trial statement incriminating

On 5 October 2004 the applicant was detained pending trial by the Ankara Assize Court (2004/91 E.).

[B] [V], domicilié [Adresse 1], contre l'arrêt rendu le 9 juillet 2015 par la cour d'appel de Dijon (chambre sociale), dans le litige l'opposant à la société Trial optique, société à

In addition, it observed that the trial could not be terminated earlier due to obstructiveness on the part of the defendants who had filed numerous requests challenging the trial court.

The request was examined and rejected orally by a trial judge on 18 February 2015.

Before the trial, the applicant applied for severance of the trial so that he would not be tried with his two co-defendants.