Romania - 34796/09 Judgment 10.5.2012 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Final judgment given in brief interval before case-law conflict was resolved by the High Court:

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

was in breach of their fair trial rights under Article 6 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing

(b)     The heading ‘What’s going on here is inhuman’, with two photographs of Christian.

no particular reasons against holding a hearing.”

They further noted that he had been released before the new hearing, and the authorities had informed him of the hearing by post and by telephone.

It subsequently scheduled a new hearing of the case for 17   May 2006.

The applicant refused to attend these hearings because he did not want to be searched by the security forces. 27.

Neither was he present at the appeal hearing.

On arrival to the station, the applicant was allegedly handcuffed to a heating unit in an office and was left in that position until the late evening.

The lawyer was further informed (i) that the District Court did not insist on an oral hearing and its representative would not be present at the hearing, and (ii) that the hearing would take place regardless

Sweden (no. 2) - 16970/90 Judgment 19.2.1998 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Public hearing Oral hearing Refusal by Supreme Administrative Court to hold an

  She requested that an oral hearing be held.

  He complained about the lack of an oral hearing in the Administrative Court of Appeal and also requested the Supreme Administrative Court to hold an oral hearing.

AYOR WATER AND HEATING SOLUTIONS, de nom commercial S.A. 

reasons against holding a hearing.”

The court asked the public prosecutor’s office to ensure the applicant’s attendance at the subsequent hearing. 20.

He also requested that his lawyer be informed about the date of the court hearing. The applicant claims that neither he nor his lawyer were notified of when the hearing was scheduled. 35.

hearing was adjourned because the presiding judge was sitting in another case. 21.