They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Vayiç v.

of pre-trial detention. 87.

    The applicant complains of the length of his trial for murder.

The applicant replied that he had been ill on that date and had asked the trial judge to postpone the trial, to no avail. The appeal judge dismissed the applicant’s request. 12.

The Supreme Court stated that it did not deem it expedient to have the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, brought from pre-trial detention.

THE LAW Complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.

    Did the applicant   have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention?

The applicant was still in pre-trial detention when he raised his complaints before the Court.

Forty press representatives subsequently applied to attend the trial.

On 20 February 2013, the case was referred to the Comrat District Court for trial.   C.

  Under Article 5, paragraph (3) of the Convention, he was entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

in administrative offence proceedings – lack of opportunity to contest pre-trial statements or reports by police officers.

D.M.’s pre-trial statements 10 .

The trial in the United Kingdom took place in November-December 1999.

The applicant and his lawyer agreed to reading out their pre-trial statements.

    On 22 January 2014 the Court of Cassation upheld the trial court’s judgment. 7.

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.

It nevertheless considered that there were grounds justifying the applicant’s pre-trial detention and fully endorsed the judge’s reasoning.