, at which they had simply been presented orally, while the Court of Cassation had allegedly been acquainted with those submissions ahead of the hearing.

ENTRE : SARL OJR CONSULTING, dont le siège social est [Adresse 1] - RCS B 894855618 Partie demanderesse : comparant par Me CARDONA Henri-Joseph Avocat (D1533) ET : SARL de droit suisse AEOLIA THE HEALING

The applicant appealed, complaining that the first-instance court had failed to inform him of the hearing. He also asked to extend the time-limit for submitting an appeal. 4 .

The hearing listed for 13   September   1995 was adjourned. A further hearing was held on 6   October   1995.

The court held hearings on 13 March and 15 May 1996. A hearing scheduled for 8 July 1996 was adjourned until 14 October 1996.

The court left unchanged the preventive custody measure and scheduled a hearing for 12–14 May 1997.

In contrast, the opposite party attended both hearings before the Gusevskiy Town Court and was free to attend the hearing before the court of appeal.

The victim's mother and three witnesses participated in the hearing in person, whereas the eyewitness P.I.'s testimony was read out at the hearing.

The letter further stated that the applicant company was not obliged to be present at the hearing unless it received a summons.

Moreover, his lawyer was also deprived of the opportunity to participate at the hearing in question.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and convicted the applicant without hearing anew the applicant and the witnesses.

    Did the applicant have an effective and accessible remedy, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to complain about the lack of a public hearing?

The applicant claims that the Supreme Court’s failure to hold an oral hearing violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

    Was the applicant’s absence from the trial hearing compatible with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?

In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the hearing before the Baku Court of Appeal?

The Government had not submitted that any of this was done by the relevant authorities at any point prior to the court hearing two days after the parents’ arrest.

Proceedings in Court of Cassation (two years and eight months): hearing had been adjourned because of a strike by members of Athens Bar which lasted seven months – new hearing date set for thirteen months

Mr Marra and Ms   Gabrielli complained under Article 6 § 1 that there had been no public hearing at the appeal stage.

The applicant indicates that he was not informed of the hearing before the Regional Commercial Court and, as a result, was not present at it.

They applied jointly for the case to be set down for hearing.