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

THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. 6.

    The first applicant complained of a violation of her right to a fair trial on account of the fact that the Court of Cassation had handed down judgments in her case, which were in conflict

THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.

In such situations, a summons sent to an accused shall include the fact that a hearing may take place in his absence.” 34.

It had endorsed the facts as they had been set out by the lower courts, but had applied the law differently, thereby providing adequate reasoning for quashing the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 19.

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

3 of the Convention in respect of the present applicant in that, in the first set of criminal proceedings against him he had been ill-treated during his police custody and that he had been denied a fair

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

  296/2006 had violated his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and constituted an unjustified interference with his possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The court stated that it had established the decisive facts concerning the time, place and manner in which the offence had been committed on the basis of the statement given by L.V.Š., a video-recording

In this context, importance is attached to appearances as well as to the increased sensitivity to the fair administration of justice (see, among other authorities, Öcalan v.

Artuk, a lawyer practising in Ağrı; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning an alleged breach of the right to a fair trial owing to a lack of sufficient reasoning to the Turkish Government

    The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.

    The applicants complained of a violation of their right to a fair trial on account of the contradictory judgments delivered by domestic courts in very similar cases.

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

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

THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Orhei. 5.

    The Court reiterates that the right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention must be interpreted in the light of the Preamble to the Convention, which declares