” which justified the absence of a hearing.

At the hearings held on 10 and 21 May 1999 the court imposed fines on a witness for his failure to attend those hearings.

On 19 September 2001 the hearing was adjourned by the County Court. At the hearing of 6 November 2001 the prosecutor presented amended charges in the part not relating to the present case.

  Further hearings were held on 17 April, on 30 July and on 24 November 1986.   At each of these hearings the applicant extended his claim.

O. further maintained that the hearing should be audio recorded in order to accelerate the proceedings.

The hearing of 19 October 2010 was adjourned at the first applicant’s request. Hearings were held on 19 November and 15 December 2010.

    Appeal hearing on 4 January 2008 25.

He complained that although he had requested an oral hearing in County Court, no hearing had been held.

However, a main hearing need not be held for the above reason, if ... the appeal is manifestly ill-founded... [or] the holding of a main hearing is for another reason manifestly unnecessary.

       On 29 June 1989 a hearing was held on the spot.   Further hearings in court were held on 10 and on 31 October 1989.

    The first hearing of the case 11.

Since he arrived in Sweden he had stayed with his sister, helping her to take of her gravely handicapped daughter.

  The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).

    Between 26 November 1993 and 27 November 1995 no hearing was held.

the court building ‒ were not allowed to attend the hearing.

On 22 February 2012 the summonses about the hearing of 21 February 2012 were delivered to the applicant and his representative.

    The first hearing was set for 18 May 1995. This hearing could not be held as members of the National Bar were on strike until 27 May 1995.

Law : Article 6 § 1 - Regarding the failure to communicate the Government Commissioner’s submissions prior to the hearing and the inability of the applicant to make submissions in reply at the hearing,

  Following the hearing, the judge held that the failure to invite the applicant to attend the case conference could not be considered unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances of this case, when