The hearing of 13 June 2014 had not been adjourned but had been held regardless of her absence.

  The judgment was read out, and the reasons for it were also given immediately after the hearing.

The hearing of the Rīga Regional Court 38.

An oral hearing was scheduled for 6 May 2002.

There appears to have been only one hearing on 1 November 1999.

  The Exel case concerns the absence of a hearing before the Commercial Court and the superior court in proceedings concerning the applicant's bankruptcy.

Subsequently, on 4 January 1996 a hearing was held.

  He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Durmuş Kurt and Others v.

courts: inadmissible Fair hearing Adversarial trial Non-disclosure of submissions of the commissaire du Gouverement and lack of opportunity to respond to them at a Conseil d’Etat hearing – failure to submit

Italy and Belgium - 10750/03 Decision 12.5.2009 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Conformity with fair-hearing requirements of Nato’s internal labour dispute resolution

On 14 January 1997 the Pest Central District held a hearing. A hearing scheduled for 18 April 1997 was adjourned as the applicant failed to appear.

A hearing listed for 23 June 1999 was adjourned due to the defendant’s absence. A hearing listed for 3 November 1999 was adjourned because the judge rapporteur was ill.

The victim identified the applicant’s voice after listening to the recording at the hearing. The second conversation was between the other two defendants.

The hearings have been adjourned many times and the proceedings before the IPC are still pending. 3. 79198/17 Pavlou v.

    The next hearings were held on 12 February, 10 March and 16 April 1999. The following hearing scheduled for 6 May 1999 was cancelled due to the new presiding judge’s illness.

    The hearings of 21 September 2005 and 27 September 2005 were held as planned. The next hearing was scheduled for 30 September 2005. 24.

from participating in the hearing.

        The first hearing took place before the District Court on 19 March 1991; a further hearing scheduled for 9 July 1991 was postponed due to a change in the person of

He added that the appellate court had not admitted evidence at the hearing and that it did not adjourn the hearing in order to give him a possibility to attend it.