Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

when the court had retired in order to deliberate, leaving the jurors in the hearing room.

Finland - 20772/92 Judgment 19.12.1997 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Public hearing Consequences of respondent State’s reservation on applicant

The regional court dismissed their appeal at an oral hearing. In an extremely overcrowded hearing room the applicants were kept in a barred dock, surrounded by several guards.

A hearing listed for 30 May 2000 was adjourned.

As to the applicants’ complaints about the Supreme Administrative Court’s failure to hold a hearing, the Court recalls that, provided that a public hearing has been held at first instance, leave to appeal

The applicant was absent from the second appeal hearing, but was represented. The defendant party did not attend either of the appeal hearings.

The City Court noted that the applicant had been duly summoned but had failed to appear at the appeal hearings.

On 2   December   1994 another hearing was held. The court summoned certain witnesses.

At the hearing held on 22 March 1999 the court heard evidence from one witness.

The hearing fixed for 28 February had to be adjourned due to illness of the judge rapporteur. On 28 August 1995 the court held a hearing. It heard the applicant and one witness.

  A hearing was only to be held in exceptional cases, in order to avoid an excessive burden on the judiciary.

The hearing, scheduled for 6 November 2003, was cancelled due to the applicant’s absence. On 3 February 2004 the Bydgoszcz District Court heard the applicant and adjourned the hearing.

  The applicant appealed to the Insurance Court requesting, inter alia , an oral hearing.

to proceed with the hearing.

    The hearing of 28 August 2002 was adjourned due to absence of the presiding judge for family reasons and the hearing of 12 September 2002 due to unclear reasons.

The applicant, his lawyer and an Albanian-speaking interpreter attended the hearings. 8.

It can also decide to hold a hearing (see paragraph 13 above).

Other hearings had taken place in accordance with the schedule.

    On 10 September 1999 the hearing was adjourned until 8   October   1999 on the ground that the defendant’s representative was unable to appear as he was attending a hearing in an