Between May and December 1994 the court listed five hearings. Three hearings were adjourned since the applicant failed to appear, one hearing was adjourned since the both parties failed to appear.

At the subsequent hearing, which was held on 26 October 1994, the court questioned the applicant and the defendant. At the hearing held on 30   November 1994 the defendant was absent.

The applicants further submitted that it would have not been possible to ask this witness questions after having studied the record of the hearing, since in order to achieve such additional hearing the

  A first hearing in the case was held in December 1985.   In 1985, seven hearings were fixed in the case.   In 1986, five hearings were fixed.

The applicant’s lawyer insisted upon having an oral hearing in the manner of criminal proceedings and stated that he would present a complaint relating to ne bis in idem at the hearing.

The applicant requested an oral hearing and that a tax inspector as well as an expert appointed by the applicant be heard as witnesses.

On 26 February 2009 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court held an appeal hearing in the applicant’s case. Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at that hearing.

The court held an oral hearing from 8 to 12 March 1999 and 15 to 18 March 1999, hearing 18 witnesses.

time and place of the hearing.”

The applicant received the notification of the time and date of the hearing after the hearing had actually taken place. 10.

prior to the hearing. 11.

  The first applicant did not attend the hearing of 11 June 1982. The District Court fixed a new hearing which was also to take place on 30 July 1982.

    On 9 December 1995 the applicant requested the District Court to hold a hearing urgently. 7.     A hearing was held on 25 March 1996. 8.

  Complaint   The applicant alleges that he did not receive a fair hearing in the proceedings in which a tax surcharge was imposed as he was not given an oral hearing.

  A hearing was fixed for 5 June 1991. However, on that date the lawyers were on strike and the hearing was adjourned until 11 December 1991.

  Apparently no hearing was held on 27 August   1991.   The next hearing took place on 1   October   1991. A witness gave evidence.

A hearing need not be held if the parties expressly waive their right to a hearing. The parties may express such a waiver up to the beginning of the hearing. ...” THE LAW I.

He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

The court could not adjourn a hearing proprio motu save on special grounds.

A hearing was then scheduled for 3 October 2007, but cancelled at X’s request. The next hearing was to be held on 12 November 2007.