Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 57321/00

By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair hearing, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for example, the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, § 33, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, 12 July 2001, § 55).

It is clear that under the applicable legislation she neither had a right nor a claim amounting to a legitimate expectation to obtain such restitution and, therefore, no "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (see, mutatis mutandis, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, 13 December 2000, ECHR 2000-XII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 57321/00

The Court considers that the fact that no public hearing was held by the Constitutional Court was sufficiently compensated by the public hearings held at the decisive stage of the proceedings, when the merits of the applicant's restitution claim were determined (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 53, ECHR 2000-VI).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 57321/00

In particular, it is not for the Court to re-assess the factual or legal elements of the case before the domestic courts when the decisions taken had a basis in law and provided relevant and sufficient reasons (see the Barbera, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 57321/00

By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair hearing, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for example, the Diennet v. France judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, § 33, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, 12 July 2001, § 55).

Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 57321/00

The Court's task is, above all, to ascertain whether the special features of the domestic proceedings viewed as a whole justify a departure from the principle that there should be a public hearing (see, among other authorities, the Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, §§ 31-32).