On 13 February 1995 the court held a hearing.

The applicant also requested an oral hearing.

The next hearing was scheduled for 28 January 2000. 42.

Article 126 § 2 of the Code provides that if a complainant fails to appear at the hearing although he was notified of the obligation to participate in the hearing in the summons sent to him and the hearing

Attendance at the hearing of the pleas of nullity 60.

be taken at that hearing.

The hearing was adjourned sine die .

On 5 November 1993 the court held the first hearing.

The first hearing was fixed for 27   September 1999.

The prosecutor requested hearing 33 witnesses and to read at the hearing statements of 18 further witnesses. 6.     On 19 October 2005 the Regional Court held the first hearing.

On 22 June 1999 an oral hearing was held, at which the applicant’s counsel was present.

An oral hearing is to be held when it is necessary for the clarification of the issues and the hearing can be considered beneficial for the case as a whole.

  As a consequence, the hearing was cancelled.     On 19 January 1995 the applicant received a summons to the rescheduled hearing on 23 and 24 February.

The City Court postponed the hearing to allow both parties to “prepare documents”. The next hearing was scheduled for 9 August 2006. 7.

.) - 44998/98 Decision 8.1.2004 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Oral hearing Lack of oral hearing in disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer: inadmissible Facts :

The oral hearing could be restricted to a certain issue.

    On 27 June 1986 the applicant applied for the action to be set down for a hearing. The hearing was fixed for 7 October 1986.

Furthermore, she wished to submit another expert report during a hearing, which document allegedly rebutted the State expert’s conclusions. 5.

the Supreme Court from deciding to proceed with the hearing in his or her absence (Article 419.4).