Sweden - 28394/95 Judgment 12.11.2002 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Oral hearing Lack of oral hearing in proceedings relating to benefits: no violation Facts – The

hearing, the trial court accepted the excuse, but fell short of properly notifying him of the proceedings.

Therefore, [the court] finds an oral hearing unnecessary.

According to the records of the Court of Appeal hearing, there were no obstacles to holding the hearing.

at the hearing and they were given time until the next hearing to present their written submissions in reply to the plaintiff’s claims.

Namely, the applicant had been properly summoned to the hearing, he had been previously heard during the investigation and there had been no need for him to be heard again at the court hearing.

[the applicant] was also present at that hearing.

It appears that neither the applicant nor the respondent were present at the hearing. According to the applicant, he had not been notified of the hearing, hence had not been present.

The hearing was adjourned and the next hearing was scheduled for 26   April 2006. 10.

    At a hearing on 30 November 2004 the applicant pleaded not guilty and decided to remain silent and to not give any evidence.

of the Code of Judicial Procedure provided a right to an oral hearing.

It was regrettable that the notice did not indicate that it was for the applicant to request, at least five days before the date of the hearing, that he be brought to the hearing room.

    On 9 June 1994 the court held a hearing. During the hearing the applicants requested the court to fix a new hearing date for the end of the fruit season.

Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at that hearing.

On appeal he was summoned to attend an oral hearing on specified dates.

Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at that hearing.

Neither the applicant nor his lawyers were notified of the appeal hearing.

Judgment 31.5.2016 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Failure by appellate courts to verify whether absent parties had received notification of hearing: violation Facts

She certified a 60% hearing loss, justifying the need for a hearing aid. 12.     On 8 September 2011 a second audiogram was carried out.

On 8 February 2007 the Regional Court held the appeal hearing without informing the applicant in advance about the hearing date.