Norway - 16206/90 Judgment 19.2.1996 Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Public hearing Oral hearing Fairness of criminal proceedings before Supreme Court: violation [This summary is

Subsequently, counsel informed the applicant of the date of the hearing and told him that, if he wished, he could ask the Supreme Court for leave to make an oral statement at the hearing but that he would

On 29 February 2012 he wrote to the Court of Appeal, requesting to be informed about the date of the hearing of his case.

  The complaints come under four different headings:   (a) Greek Cypriot missing persons and their relatives   In respect of missing persons it is alleged that, if any are still in Turkish

  m; no heating, insufficient lighting;     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings.

An oral hearing in the Appeal Court could have revealed more facts of the case.

Allegedly, he also had hearing and speech problems.

Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated its right to an adversarial and fair hearing

Under the same heading, the applicant company alleged that the proceedings had not been fair. 11.

the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Cassation had violated his right to an adversarial and fair hearing

Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated its right to an adversarial and fair hearing

The applicant had access to a toilet before or after each hearing or at any other time upon request. Cells measured 1.9 m by 1 m.

    The Court reiterates at the outset that the entitlement to a “public hearing” in Article 6 § 1 necessarily implies a right to an “oral hearing”.

was made to November 1994 to complete the hearing of evidence.

On 14 June 2011 A., a judge of the Tver Regional Court, conducted a preliminary hearing on Mr   Kh.’s case.

He further maintains under the same heading that during his police custody he was not brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.

He did not complain about his absence from the hearing before the Court of Appeal. 14.     On 14 March 2006 the Supreme Court held a hearing in the presence of the public prosecutor.

        Such special provisions are found in the Reindeer Herding Act.

The latter held hearings on 23 June and 7 September 2004. 16.