fair trial, in breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing

    On 23 June 2012 the Court of Appeal sent the fifth applicant a summons to attend a hearing on 1 November 2012. The delivery slip is in his domestic case file.

    The hearing of 22 February 2010 was postponed until 9 March 2010 because Judge D. was ill. 27 .

As can be seen in the minutes of the court hearings submitted by the Government, the documents examined in the course of the trial included “a letter from the farming company”, included as page  

    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.

On 7 February 2008 the applicant again requested that the proceedings be expedited and an oral hearing held in her case.

He referred to Article 6 § 1 which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows”   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a

(a)     Lack of a public oral hearing before the Administrative Court 25.

They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The applicant and his lawyer were not present at the hearing. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6   §   1 OF THE CONVENTION 12.

the Convention that the fact that she had not been allowed to comment on the Ministry’s observations submitted to the Higher Administrative Court had amounted to a violation of her right to a fair hearing

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

The appeal decision reads as follows: “[The applicant] is absent from the appeal hearing; he has been duly informed about the time and place of the hearing.

The Supreme Court did not notify the applicant or her lawyer of that hearing. The prosecutor was present and made oral representations during the hearing.

Court forwarded the respondent’s petition to the applicant and informed him that, within eight days of receiving the order, he could file comments on the respondent’s petition and/or request an oral hearing

    The applicants complained that their right to a fair hearing had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to properly and timely notify them of hearings in the civil proceedings

Switzerland - 41269/08 Judgment 16.6.2015 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Failure to inform person interviewed as a witness, but later convicted, of her right to remain

    The cassation hearing 20.     On 11 March 2003 the hearing took place before the Senate of the Supreme Court. 21.

the summons for the hearing of 27 April 2007 had not been deliverable to the principal’s lawyer prior to that hearing; and (iii) that on 11   May 2007 the principal’s new lawyer had requested that