[who was in charge of the undercover operation] did not deny at the hearing that [S.] was a friend of his.

On 12 October 2010 the Berezniki Town Court held a hearing.

  (e)   The court-martial hearing   36.   The accused is given an opportunity to object to any particular member of the court-martial and to its general constitution.

  (d)   The court-martial hearing   33.

It was declared admissible on 2 March 1999 and a hearing on the merits was held on 31 August 1999.

Saami, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible its complaint according to which its case concerning the granting of permits for herding

    On 5 July 1993 the court held a hearing. An expert did not appear. The case was listed for a further hearing.

Pending his reply the case was not scheduled for a hearing.

On 30 November 1999, a chamber of the Third Section decided to invite the applicant and the United Kingdom Government to make submissions at an oral hearing.

The following hearing was scheduled for 15 October 1998.

It was dark and cold inside as lighting and heating were always turned off. 3.

    The applicant attended the hearing of 27 April 2004 and was represented by a lawyer.

The following hearing was fixed for 10 October 2005. The District Court sent a telegram to the applicant’s home address, notifying him of the hearing.

offences incited by the police were unfair and in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing

    At a hearing on 18 December 2012, the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court heard further witnesses for the prosecution.

Therefore, the hearing conducted in the applicant’s absence had been in accordance with the domestic law and the applicant’s right to a fair hearing had been respected.

In addition, he complained that he had not been given a public hearing before the BCSC. 17.

If a party requests an oral hearing he/she must indicate the reasons why it would be necessary and what kind of evidence he/she would present at the hearing.

This caused incorrect healing of the bones. As a result, the applicant had to undergo another operation where the bones were again broken and reset.