As a result, the trial was postponed until 26 September 1994.

the admission of statements made in those interviews would not jeopardise their right to a fair trial.

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

  The Application concerns the detention pending trial of Wilhelm Gericke.

against the third applicant’s lawyer following the complaint lodged by the members of the trial court’s bench?

be consistent with the principle of legality; in particular insofar as the Federal Court of Justice had rejected any claim for restitution or compensation on the ground that the – purely formal and trivial

trial court had refused his request to hear as a witness his lawyer P.

The proceedings ended with the final interlocutory judgment of the Maramureș County Court of 16 September 2014, which was sitting as a pre-trial judge.

stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of the statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Salduz v.

stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of the statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Salduz v.

    Was the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

    Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

    The applicants’ trial 18.

N. did not appear at the trial.

    The applicants and their co-defendants Mr Zakshevskiy, S.S. and   I.K. stood trial at the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a trial court (“the trial court”). 32.

a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

    Pre-trial proceedings 6.

for his pre-trial detention between 12   May 2009 and 29 September 2011; (d)   EUR 2,850 to Mr Podolin for his pre-trial detention between 18   December 2007 and 30 April 2010; (e)  

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.