the hearing as he considered this to be the IAP’s task.

An oral hearing may however be dispensed with if the appeal is manifestly ill-founded or if a hearing would be manifestly unnecessary for another reason. 15.

The first instance court, for example, held twenty hearings and the adjournment of only one of the scheduled hearings was attributable to the court.

  At short notice the hearing was postponed to 23 February 1987.   At this hearing the applicant was prevented from attending, though his lawyer was present.

P. at the hearings and to attend them as an observer.

On 3   November 2010 the applicant took part in a court hearing by means of a video link. He complained to the judges about the beatings.

Moreover, the next hearing was fixed for 24   January   1996. The next hearings were held on 24 January and 2 February 1996.

Either granting the public effective access to hearings in prison or transferring detainees to court buildings for the purpose of public hearings may indeed require arrangements which run counter to the

The applicant and his counsel M. were present at the hearing.

had no legal assistance at the appeal hearing.

This means that the parties must, during the preparatory hearings, name all those persons whom they wish to call as witnesses in the main hearing. 24.

requested a hearing within the time-limit.

A hearing was set for 26 June 2019. 18 .

The procès-verbal containing his statement was annexed to the procès-verbal of the hearing under the heading "suspicion of perjury" ("verdenking meineed").

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of a public hearing.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

On 14 March 2007 a court clerk called the applicant’s representative and informed her that the court hearing was supposed to take place on the next day.

Belgium - 12351/86 Judgment 22.4.1992 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Failure by a court of appeal, hearing a case remitted to it by the Court

The High Court hearing took place over nine days in 2014 and a written judgment was delivered on 11 July 2014. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

He had also been notified of the appeal hearing but had not appeared.