Two hearings on the merits were fixed by the Michurinskiy Town Court for 15   and 22 August 2003. The parties did not appear at either of those hearings.

    The applicants further complained about the lack of a public hearing.

Subsequently, 22 December 1989 was set for the next hearing. 10.

  An appeal by the applicant to the Constitutional Court, in which he complained that there had been no public hearing in the appellate proceedings, was dismissed.

The applicants each lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court and requested an oral hearing.

It is not clear whether the applicant sought leave to attend the appeal hearing.

A representative of the colony was present at the hearing and made oral submissions.

According to the text of the ruling issued at the close of the hearing, the question of extending the applicant’s detention was not discussed.

  He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Repetitive cases   Avramenko v.

    The appeal hearing was scheduled for 26 April 2018. 6.     On 15 and 17 April 2018 the applicant’s lawyers filed requests to adjourn the hearing.

The applicants each lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court and requested an oral hearing.

On 29   May 2007 her lawyer received notice of the hearing to be held on 7   June 2007.

The trial court held five hearings in 2003, five hearings in 2004 and eight hearings in 2005. On 31 August 2005 the Kielce District Court gave its judgment.

Whereas the proceedings in the Constitutional Court had been conducted without a public hearing, those proceedings had been limited to points of law.

COMPLAINTS The first applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing was breached because the appeal court dismissed his application to appear in person at the hearing

On 5   May   1994 the court held a hearing. It ordered that an expert report be prepared and adjourned the hearing. The next hearing was held on 5   January   1995.

Of the fifteen hearings listed between 21 August 1998 and 13 July 2001, two hearings were adjourned because the applicant did not attend, three hearings were postponed because both parties defaulted, and

In the absence of an official decision of the court to examine the case in a closed hearing, the public was not allowed to attend the hearing. The applicant was not given legal assistance.

The court was not required, when adjourning a hearing, to inform the parties who were in attendance about the subject-matter of the forthcoming hearing. 19.