On 27 April 1989 the Regional Court held the fourth hearing.

remand prison where the applicant was placed in a cage 13/05/2015 13/05/2015 13/05/2015 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings

The hearings listed for 4 and 25 March 1996 were adjourned. On 6 May 1996 the court adjourned a hearing and ordered the parties to produce documentary evidence.

Turquie , they also rely on Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).

  In the Convention proceedings, the applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1, that he was denied a fair hearing on the determination of his compensation claim, as no oral hearing was held and as

        The Real Estate Court held an oral hearing, during which the parties were heard.

On 27   October   1993 the court held a hearing. The Government submit that the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing.

A representative of the service provider was present at the hearing and made oral submissions.

    Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?

Oral hearings are not public unless a special legal rule provides otherwise or the administrative authority decides that the hearing shall be public. 29.

On 11   January 2001 witnesses K., R. and V. failed to appear at the hearing in the City Court and the hearing was adjourned to 5 February 2001.

    The court held a hearing on 11 May 2001. 28.     At the hearing held on 21 September 2001 it ordered an expert opinion. 29.

and without hearing her.

A further hearing took place on 7 June 2001. A hearing scheduled for 5 February 2002 had to be postponed, apparently because of the first applicant's illness.

On 27 July 1995 the Jablonec nad Nisou District Court held a hearing and adjourned the case to 14 September 1995. The applicant claims that he was not summoned to appear at the hearing.

Article 6 § 1, insofar as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”

Section 276 a provides that in the hearing following the adjournment, the presiding judge summarises orally the relevant results of the preceding hearing on the basis of the trial record and other files

On 17 May 2005, after having held an oral hearing, the Office rejected the application.

The next hearings were held on 11   April and 30 May 2006. A hearing scheduled for 18 July 2006 was adjourned at the applicant's request.

The court then decided whether to proceed with the hearing.