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

Secondly, the applicant’s disability had in any event been caused exclusively by his mental illness, implying that no issue arose from the fact that the authorities distinguished between “injuries” and

    The Court reiterates that the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of the principles of rule of law and legal certainty, encompasses the

THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.

    The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Background information 5.

    The Court considers that if the Court of Appeal was to ensure a fair trial, it was under a duty to take positive measures in order to rehear the absent witnesses, notwithstanding the fact

Trekli, Legal Counsellor and Senior Advisor at the State Legal Council respectively, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the fact that the   Government did not object  

The Court of Appeal referred to the fact that the District Court had already once postponed a hearing at the applicant’s request and that he and his representative had failed to appear at the hearing of

    The applicant company complained that the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice had not been fair.

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

    Being the master of characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v.

THE FACTS 3.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 4.

    The applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to establish the elements of the offence and had not taken into account the fact that he had not refused to comply

THE FACTS 3.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4.

Firstly, she argued that her right to a fair hearing had been violated on account of the fact that none of the opposing party’s applications had been served on her.

Moreover, there can be no doubt about the fact that there is a right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 where a substantive right recognised in domestic law is accompanied by a procedural right to have

assess the evidence before them, establish facts and interpret domestic law (see Ayetullah Ay , cited above, §   123, with further references).

THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1964. A.

    The right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, encompasses the requirement that, where