On 27 June 1988 the first hearing was held. As witnesses had not been summoned properly, the hearing was adjourned. 10.     On 14 September 1989 the second hearing was held.

    On 9 November 1987 the parties were summoned to appear at a hearing on 26 November 1987. This hearing was cancelled on 23 November 1987.

The prosecutor asked that the hearings be declared secret, in application of Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, such a hearing need not be held for the reasons mentioned above if, inter alia , the holding of a hearing is manifestly unnecessary.

On 15 May 1998 the District Court held a hearing.

The hearing scheduled for 20 May 2004 was adjourned, inter alia , due to the applicants’ absence.

a re-hearing.

  At the District Court's preparatory hearing it was decided that the main hearing should be held in September 1991.

Further hearings were held on 28 January, 11 March and 15 April 1997.

     The investigation opened at the hearing of         21 February 1984, followed by hearings on 26 June 1984 and      &

  She relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Beneficio Cappella Paolini v.

    On 26 November 1998 the District Court held a hearing.

audibility 20/12/2021 Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings

At the hearing of 4 February 2013 the County Court examined the photographs from the crime scene and decided to hear three witnesses after the hearing, since the hearing was adjourned due to the sickness

Following a hearing on 19 December 1986 where only the applicant and her lawyer appeared, and a hearing on 23 September 1987 where both parties appeared, the Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal

only 3,5 hours before it took place and the appeal court hearing was held in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the

Both the applicant and his lawyer participated in the appeal hearing. 15.

Ekbatani has requested the hearing of a person who was not heard by the City Court. The prosecutor has not objected to the hearing of the new witness by the Court of Appeal.

He asked that the conviction be quashed and he and his lawyer be invited to the hearing. According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer was notified of the appeal hearing.

On 19 February 1999, following the applicant’s request to postpone the hearing, the District Court scheduled the main hearing for 2 March 1999.