Altogether 27 witnesses were heard during the principal hearings (the hearing of 27 other proposed witnesses was rejected).

The applicant was present at that hearing.

The hearing was listed for 17 March 1999. On 17 March 1999 the district court adjourned the hearing until 30 June 1999.

of hearing would be held by the Supreme Court.

hearing on the merits for 29 March 2005 and decided that only the public prosecutor and the defendants’ lawyers should be invited to that hearing.

From that the expert inferred that in Russia “official application of traditional methods of healing” was not allowed.

E was, however, not formally summoned to the hearing. In any event, E failed to appear at the main hearing on 28   November 1996 and the hearing was cancelled.

Setting down the case for the appeal hearing 1. Having received the criminal case with the notice of appeal ... the judge shall fix the date, time and venue of the [appeal] hearing. 2.

E was, however, not formally summoned to the hearing. In any event, E failed to appear at the main hearing on 28   November 1996 and the hearing was cancelled.

    The applicant's right to a public hearing 18.

The Court reiterates at the outset that the entitlement to a “public hearing” in Article 6 § 1 necessarily implies a right to an “oral hearing”.

At the hearing the court examined the parties and four witnesses.

The applicant did not request a hearing, nor did he expressly waive this right. No oral hearing was held.

a (further) hearing before the Real Property Transaction Commission.

after the hearing had taken place.

holding a hearing in person?

Many hearing rooms are therefore currently unsuitable for use.

Article 392.1.6 of the CCrP provides that, during a preliminary hearing, the appellate court decides whether the merits of the appellate complaint will be examined in a public or closed hearing.

There were eight hearings before the District Court. The presiding   judge changed after the first hearing at which one complainant had been heard.