Such hearings were, as a general rule, not public.

The District Office did not hold a hearing. 8.

At this stage the company did not request an oral hearing.

As regards the lack of an oral hearing in the judicial review proceedings, the Constitutional Court emphasised that a hearing in those proceedings was excluded by law.

    Conditions at the court hearing From 6 June 2013 to August 2013 the first-instance hearings of the applicants’ criminal case took place in the hearing room no. 338 of the Moscow City Court

It is not clear whether the District Court held an oral hearing and whether in the letter of 15 March 2006 the applicant was also invited to attend such a hearing.

hearing on or before 23 March 1991.

A detainee may waive his right to a hearing if two hearings have already taken place (Section 181 para. 5).

    First instance hearings at the Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Leningradskiy Region 8.     The date of the first hearing in the case was fixed on 16 February 1999.

The second hearing took place on 12 September 1996. On 17 December 1996 the third hearing was held, in which the applicant was present.

had not attended the preceding hearings.

It set a court hearing for 22 January 2018. 11.

On 5 May 1997 the applicant filed an appeal asking for a hearing to be held.

The hearing was adjourned at the request of Unirol Ltd. 13.     On 17   March   1995 the trial court held a hearing. The plaintiff was absent at that hearing.

The hearing continued on 11 and 12 December 1996 and 15 January 1997.

It also refused his request for an oral hearing before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Thus, an oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary. It was neither necessary to hold an oral hearing in order to establish the facts of the case.

He also withdrew a previous request for the hearing of one witness.

Before the hearing, the court excluded the public from the court room. Once the hearing had begun, the applicant's lawyer protested. He argued that the court had acted unlawfully. 9.