a hearing taken place. 32.

hearing.

    The District Court held an oral hearing on 10 December 1996. The applicant, A.V. and their respective lawyers were present at the hearing.

Turkey [GC] - 36590/97 Judgment 11.7.2002 [GC] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Oral hearing Lack of oral hearing in proceedings concerning a claim for compensation for detention:

On 6 October 2009 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing and examined the applicants’ appeal. Neither the applicants, nor any other parties were present at the hearing.

They complained, in particular, that they had not had a public hearing and that the judgment had not been publicly pronounced in full.

On 3   March 1995 a hearing was held.

Rather it would have been the court’s duty to hold a hearing ex officio .

  The minutes of this hearing comprise 66 pages.   Subsequent to this hearing yet another judge took over the case.   25.

Austria - 22811/93 Judgment 30.11.1999 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Lack of public hearing in proceedings concerning land consolidation: violation The case concerns

She was present at the hearings of the court of first instance and of the court of appeal.

underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 19 June 2000 Averill v. the United Kingdom - 36408/97 Judgment 6.6.2000 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing

Oral hearing Absence of oral hearing in proceedings relating to access to children in care: violation (Extract from press release) Facts : The case concerned an application brought by a father and grandfather

The summons contained sufficient information about the date and hour of the hearings and were properly served on the parties.

She confirmed at the court hearing that she had been the author of the article and had also formulated the sub-headings.

  In general, the Supreme Court conducts a public hearing on the plea of nullity which may also be combined with a public hearing on appeals against sentence.

if it was clear that such a hearing was unnecessary.

It held that no grounds had been brought forward that justified the applicant’s absence at the trial hearing before the appellate court.

The two followed hearings did not take place owing to the default by the respondent’s representative.