At the first hearing of the trial, the applicant indicated the value of the claim at 101,000 Croatian kunas (HRK). 6.

    A hearing was held on 27 June 2003 before the Supreme Court of Justice (“the Supreme Court”). The applicant did not attend the hearing, but his lawyer was present.

In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ... 3.

  296 of 27 December 2006 (“Law no. 296/2006”) had violated their right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2.

    After several remittals, at a hearing held in private on 12   February 2015, the Bitola Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) overturned a decision by the trial court and dismissed

    The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ refusal of their requests to appear in court.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

    The Municipal Court held altogether three hearings.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

LITHUANIA (Application no. 36098/19)       JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Failure of domestic courts to address arguments raised by applicant in decisions ordering him

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time

    The case was set for a directions hearing on 14 June 2006.

by existing case-law, an oral hearing had not been necessary. 11.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

    Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained that that he had not had a fair hearing, since the domestic court decisions had lacked adequate reasoning and he did not have

    According to the transcript of the conversation between Z. and the applicant during the police operation, Z. was grateful to the applicant for helping him and offered her a reward, but the

A. also asked for additional time in order to submit supplementary documents and requested an oral hearing. 10 .

    The Court reiterates that, in deciding whether applicants have received a fair hearing, it does not take the place of the domestic courts, which are in the best position to assess the evidence