On 18 June 2012 the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing on the applicant’s appeal for 17 July 2012 at one of the court’s buildings.

Between April and December 1994, fifty-five hearings were held.

The applicant had complained about the second appellate hearing of November 2007 by submitting additional pleadings in March 2008.

    The first hearing in the case took place on 23 May 2008.

In accordance with Article 147 § 2 (2) of CCP, unless there are technical obstacles, the hearing of a victim as referred to in Article 185a should be filmed.

Nonetheless, the Regional Court proceeded with the hearing, without verifying whether the other participants had been duly informed about the date and time of the hearing, and rejected the applicant’s

According to the applicant, he had, from the prison, contacted the appointed lawyer, who had assured him that he would be present at the hearing.

Prior to June 1999, a military judge participated in hearings of the State Security Court. The first hearing was devoted to purely procedural matters.

According to the applicants, the hearing room was equipped with a glass cabin measuring 3.6   m x 1.2 m x 2.2 m (height).

According to the applicants, the hearing room was equipped with a glass cabin measuring 3.6   m x 1.2 m x 2.2 m (height).

Her counsel arranged with the Prison Service for her to be present at the court building on the day of the appeal, but the judge hearing the appeal refused to allow her to attend the hearing as it would

On 9 September 1999 the District Court decided that the hearing relating to the interim order should precede the contempt hearing.

(e)   In the hearing of 3   February 2012 the lawyer of one of the co-accused requested to give a closing speech in the next hearing.

      At the close of the hearing on 27 January 1997 the chairman of the Court of Appeal informed the applicant's lawyer that, during the hearing on 29 January, the court would

For this reason, 20–25 visitors missed the first hearing; 3–5 visitors missed each of the later hearings. In each hearing, 45–50 seats remained free.

    On 4 August 2004 the trial court held a hearing in the applicant’s absence and granted B.S.’s claims. According to the applicant, he had not been duly summoned to that hearing. 21.

The absence of the representative from the hearing did not impede the court to proceed with the hearing. B.

His counsel petitioned to transfer him from SIZO for participation in a hearing. The court considered the counsel’s requests except the applicant’s transfer from SIZO.

On 18 June and 23 October 1998 the court held hearings.