Judgment 8.7.2021 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Failure by Court of Appeal to order fresh hearing of accused before overturning their acquittal at first instance:

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6   §   1 OF THE CONVENTION on account of the lack of a public hearing 4.

Furthermore, the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request for an oral hearing, relying on Section   39(2)(6) of the Administrative Court Act, which allows it to forego a hearing if it

, the presiding judge declares the hearing closed.”

a hearing on other issues.

    On 1 June 1999 the Chamber decided not to hold a hearing in the case. 7.

The applicant did not attend the hearing. According to her, in the evening of 12   September 2002 she discovered the letter with summonses to the hearing of 12 September 2002 in her post box. B.

On 11   March 2003 he sent a fax to the Municipal Court excusing himself from the hearing scheduled for 17 March and asked for an adjournment of the hearing.

That hearing and the subsequent hearings on 6 and 11 April 2005 were postponed because the claimant’s lawyer was ill. 15 .

right to an oral hearing at least before one instance.

In the latter case, the oral hearing takes on a preparatory character.

at the hearing.

    The first hearing of her case was scheduled for 7 July 1999. On that date the applicant did not appear at the court hearing as she had not received the summons.

    A person who disturbs order during a court hearing shall be cautioned, in the name of the court, by the judge presiding at the hearing. 2.

The defendants, including the applicant, were held in glass cabins in both hearing rooms. From mid-September 2013 to the end of 2013 the hearings continued in hearing room no.

In his pleadings of 20 May 2019 the applicant requested that an oral hearing be held, with a view to hearing the parties about their agreement.

The application concerns the applicant’s right to a fair hearing, having regard to the alleged failure of the domestic court to base its reasoning on objective arguments while preserving the rights of

  She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Aresti Charalambous v.

Furthermore, he claimed that his request constituted an obstacle (rättegångshinder) to holding a main hearing in the fraud case.