Serbia - 1401/08 Judgment 9.4.2013 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Arbitrary domestic decision amounting to denial of justice: violation   Facts – In 2004 the applicant

Latvia [GC] - 17502/07 Judgment 23.5.2016 [GC] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Enforcement in Latvia of judgment delivered in Cyprus in the debtor’s absence: no violation

The European Commission was also given leave to participate in the hearing. 10.

Romania - 24935/04 Judgment 29.10.2013 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Different decisions, without sufficient reasons, by two different courts as to admissibility

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

The information in question cannot be examined at a hearing unless the person bound by the duty of confidentiality is exempted from that duty.

A prosecutor was present at the hearing. At the end of the hearing, he gave an opinion that the applicant’s claims should be allowed in part and the remainder dismissed.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

    At a hearing of 24 May 2011 the presiding judge informed the parties of the reply received from the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. 19.

    The public prosecutor’s office set the case down for hearing on 3   November 2005 and then on 16   November   2005.

The absence of a prosecutor [who has been] notified of the time and place of the hearing shall not constitute an impediment to the hearing of [such a] case.” Article 131.

Belgium - 649/08 Judgment 25.9.2012 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Use of evidence from overseas when there was a real risk that it had been obtained by torture: violation

The court twice postponed the hearing in order for the prosecution to submit evidence in this respect. 15 .

other persons, as its hearings were closed.

The hearings started at 11 a.m.

hearing.

    Another hearing was scheduled for 4 November 1994.

The first applicant’s lawyer was present at the court hearing.

    On 7 February 2000 at the applicant's request the hearing was adjourned to 21 April 2000. On the latter date the hearing did not take place as the judge was away for training. 15.