No hearing was held.

    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?

After several remittals, on 12 February 2015, at a hearing held in private, the Bitola Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance court’s judgment in the applicants’ favour.

Hearings held on 6 April, 8 June, 13   July and 2 October 1998 were presided over by judge S.Š. At the hearing of 6 April 1998 the applicant gave evidence.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

Subsequently the trial judge adjourned the hearings scheduled for 12, 15 and 16 September 2008 for counsel Kh.’s absence.

Italy - 399/02 Judgment 13.11.2007 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Public hearing Lack of public hearing in proceedings for the imposition of preventive measures: violation

This amendment, which entered into force on 31 December 1999, introduced into the aforementioned law the following new provision: "The Real Property Transaction Authority shall hold a public hearing if

On 15 November 1997 the trial court held the first hearing at which it heard the applicant.

At the last hearing of 30 June 2011 the court-appointed lawyer submitted her final observations.

  If Article 6 of the Convention was applicable, did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1?

On 31 August 2009 the Maykop Town Court held an appeal hearing. The applicant, who had not been informed about the hearing date, did not attend.

A ministerial appeals commission dismissed his appeal without holding a hearing.

The hearing was held in the applicant’s absence. 10.     The applicant appealed against the decision.

During a hearing held on 15 February 2006, the trial court informed the parties, in accordance with the conclusion of the Skopje Court of Appeal, that the next hearing, scheduled for 20 March 2006, would

The court held hearings on 24 January, 18 June and 12 December 1996, 16 May 1997, 23 April 1998. The next hearing in the case was held on 17   February 2000.

N. testified at a hearing before the investigating judge which was not attended by the applicant’s counsel, who gave no reasons for his absence.

In the Court’s view, if the applicants displayed due diligence, they should have been aware about that forthcoming hearing.