s trial, as Mr P. had not objected to that. A copy of the record of Mr   P.'s trial had been attached to the applicant's case file.

Article 154 bis – Status of the Prefect in pre-trial detention matters In matters regarding pre-trial detention, the Prefect takes decisions freely and independently.

The relevant part of the trial court’s judgment reads as follows: “...

    During the trial the victim’s representative submitted to the trial court a notarised statement of the victim acknowledging that all his accusations against the applicant were slanderous.

investigation and the judge of the trial court during the trial (see Articles 176 and 197 of the CCP, paragraph 18 above).

and at his trial.

S. was not questioned at the trial; his deposition was read out despite the applicant’s and his counsel’s objections. - In a pre-trial statement K. testified that she knew both from the applicant and Sk

proceedings, trial or execution of the sentence. 36 .

  Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article ... shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

he shall be detained pending trial.

    The first trial was scheduled for 3 July 2003.

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

Preparation for the trial Invitation to examine the investigation case file 17 .

His trial and the trial of his co-accused began on 12 June 1996 in the Crown Court before a jury.

of a fair trial.

#Kopienas preču zīme – Spēkā neesamības atzīšanas process – Kopienas grafiska preču zīme “Pollo Tropical CHICKEN ON THE GRILL” – Absolūts atteikuma pamatojums – Ļaunticības neesamība – Regulas (EK) Nr.

ÇİÇEKLER against Turkey lodged on 26 July 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of the use by the trial

During their trial, they have lodged numerous requests for release, which have all been dismissed.

On 23   March 2016 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the trial court’s decision and remitted the criminal case against the applicant to the trial court for consideration on the merits.

The applicant complains under Article 3 that her pre-trial detention was incompatible with her advanced age (80 years’ old) and her state of health.