(d)   The court-martial hearing   34.

  (d)   The court-martial hearing   34.

  New rules for hearings   As regards the setting of hearings : Law 3346/2005 (Article 1) amended the Courts Administration Code and prescribed that the initial setting of hearings at first instance

At the latter court session the final hearing was scheduled to take place on 16 June 1995.

SWITZERLAND   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today 7 February 2007 at 9 a.m., in the case of Stoll v. Switzerland (application no. 69698/01).

    On 4 December 2014 the Zagreb Civil Municipal Court concluded the main hearing in the civil proceedings and informed the lawyers of both parties that the hearing for the pronouncement of

    With a hearing on 17 February 1994, the State Security Court of Diyarbakır began the trial.

Lastly, the AGCOM procedure had not met all the requirements of Article 6, particularly as regards the equality of arms between prosecution and defence and the holding of a public hearing allowing for

No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Equality of arms;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal;Public hearing)

The applicant and his counsel were not present at that hearing. On 13 October 2000 the hearing was adjourned for unspecified reasons. On 28 February 2001 the trial began.

    The case concerns the alleged breach of the principles of adversarial hearing and of equality of arms in the civil proceedings concerning the applicant company’s claim for damages from the

In the Seliwiak case, the applicant did not attend his appeal hearing before the Court of Appeal as he was not notified of the hearing.

In the Seliwiak case, the applicant did not attend his appeal hearing before the Court of Appeal as he was not notified of the hearing.

The applicant was allegedly told that the remaining evidence could be presented at the main hearing. 14.     The main hearing was held on 8 February 1996.

They further submitted that the restoration of the central heating was made impossible and unnecessary as the applicants had installed individual heating in their homes.

At the hearing the first applicant was represented by a lawyer.

    The applicant complained that his right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to properly and timeously notify him of the appellate hearing in the

    Accordingly, the procedure followed did not enable the applicants to participate properly in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal and thus deprived them of a fair hearing within the

Court: The case concerning defendant no. 1 is set down for hearing on 7.10.2014 at 11 a.m. The defendant should sign a bond of € 2,000.” 13 .