4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. 5.  The applicant was a teacher in a public secondary school in Moscow. She claims that during a lesson on 30 January 2002 one of her senior students, Ms I., then sixteen years old, misbehaved whereupon the applicant told her to leave the classroom. The girl left the school building without a coat, wandered around for hours, and later fell ill. On the next day, the girl’s mother lodged a complaint with the school principal. 6.  On 21 February 2002 the school principal dismissed the applicant from her post. The notice of dismissal reads as follows:
“On 30 January 2002 during [a senior class] lesson conducted [by the applicant], a student, [Ms I.], as a result of blaming, demands and the use of unacceptable methods of discipline, was driven by [the applicant] to tears, suffering nervous and emotional distress. [The applicant] in the presence of her other classmates rudely turned [Ms I.] out of the classroom, telling her ‘to cool down’ despite the latter’s visible distress... [Ms I.] then left the school, in a state of anxiety and agitation, without documents, money or means of communication. By the end of the lesson [the applicant] had not enquired about the student’s whereabouts or the reasons for her absence and did not take the necessary measures to find her. Furthermore, [the applicant] later left the school for private reasons before the child was found and did not express any interest in the child’s fate...The witnesses to the incident were other teachers and students at the school.
[The applicant’s] actions, as described above, show evidence of her ‘use of methods of discipline involving physical and psychological abuse of students’ in breach of professional ethics...” 7.  On 11 April 2002 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the school in the Khamovnicheskiy District Court (“the District Court”) of Moscow seeking reinstatement in her post and compensation. She claimed that the accusations against her were unsubstantiated and that she had not used unacceptable methods of discipline and had not turned the student out of the classroom. She had merely suggested that the student calm down by leaving the classroom and going to have some tea in the school cafeteria. 8.  On 15 May 2002 the respondent asked for hearings to be held in camera. Referring to Article 9 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure, the District Court granted the request in the following terms:
 “...The respondent asked for a trial in camera because the case involves the interests of juveniles and in order to prevent any adverse effect on the students’ education. The claimant objected to the request...Under Article 123 of the Constitution trials in all courts are held in public. A trial in camera is allowed in cases established by federal law. The court has taken into consideration the fact that the present case involves the interests of juveniles, namely, the students [of the school]. The court therefore finds it necessary to hold its sessions in camera in order to prevent any adverse effect on their education...” 9.  The District Court examined the case during a number of sessions from 29 May 2002 to 7 February 2003, all of which were closed to the public. The applicant denied that she had used “methods of discipline involving physical and psychological abuse”. She had only asked Ms I. to leave the classroom in response to the student’s repeated refusals to complete a task. The applicant alleged that the real reason for her dismissal was her criticism of the school principal. 10.  The respondent claimed that the applicant had been dismissed as a result of the psychological abuse of Ms I. during the lesson. The respondent acknowledged that since 2000 the applicant had lodged numerous complaints before the relevant authorities against the school principal, as a result of which several inspections had been carried out. However, according to them, no sanctions had been imposed on the applicant since that time and her dismissal had no link with the complaints she had previously lodged against the principal. 11.  The court heard a number of witnesses testify on the applicant’s behalf. The applicant asked the court to call a former student of the school, Mr L., who, although not in the same class as Ms I. had heard about the incident from his classmates. The court rejected these requests and refused to admit on file an affidavit signed by Mr L. 12.  The applicant’s representative made a request to examine other students of the school, Ms B. and Mr Kh., who had heard about the incident from their schoolmates. The District Court granted this request. However, given that the witnesses were minors, the court decided to question them in the absence of both parties. The decision reads as follows:
“...The court considers it acceptable to question them on the circumstances of the case in the absence of both parties in accordance with Article 179 of the Code of Civil Procedure having regard to the witnesses’ age, the fact of their being school students and that the case concerns the reinstatement in employment of a person dismissed because of ‘the use of methods involving physical and psychological abuse’...” 13.  The applicant listed a further seven people she wanted to call as witnesses. Those persons (the applicant’s students at the time), had been present in the classroom on 30 January 2002 and, according to the applicant, were ready to confirm her version of the events. The District Court refused to call them. It can be seen from the minutes of the hearing that the court did not give any reasons for its refusal. The court’s judgment is also silent on this issue. 14.  The applicant unsuccessfully further tried to obtain the court examination of a psychiatrist in order to assess the allegation of “psychological abuse” in her actions. According to the applicant, the court also refused the request to admit on file copies of her complaints against the school principal lodged before her dismissal. 15.  Several witnesses testified on the respondent’s behalf, including the school principal, Ms I.’s mother, a parent of one of Ms I.’s classmates, certain teachers and a doorkeeper at the school. The respondent also adduced documentary evidence such as a copy of the complaint lodged by Ms I.’s mother and a medical certificate for Ms I. The court also heard a public prosecutor. 16.  None of the witnesses heard by the District Court had been present in the classroom during the dispute between the applicant and Ms I. Either they had heard about the quarrel from third parties or had seen Ms I. in tears and hysterics following the incident. It appears that Ms. I. did not testify in court and the respondent did not make a request to have her called. 17.  The final hearing was scheduled for 7 February 2003. According to the applicant (who was pregnant at the time), she sought an adjournment on the grounds of ill health. The District Court held the final hearing in the applicant’s and her representative’s absence and dismissed the applicant’s claims. The relevant extracts from the judgment reads as follows:
“This case was examined between 4 and 7 February 2003. The claimant and her representative failed to appear at the hearing at 9 a.m. on 7 February 2003. The hearing was adjourned until 2 p.m. to find out the reasons for the claimant’s absence. During this period no relevant information emerged...In these circumstances, given that sufficient evidence had been collected for the examination of the case on its merits, that the proceedings are being protracted and that the claimant abused her procedural rights, the court considers it acceptable to examine the case in the absence of the applicant and her representative, who had been notified of the date and place of the hearing...
The court considers that the facts indicated in the dismissal order have been established during the examination of the case. The respondent submitted the evidence proving this...On 30 January 2002 during the third lesson [of a senior class], the applicant caused [Ms I.] mental suffering and anxiety by using insulting and humiliating behaviour...The applicant accused the child of telling a lie...Using unacceptable behaviour consisting of threats and intimidation she demanded her to complete a written task...The applicant demonstrated a negative attitude towards the child which also continued after the lesson had ended in that she turned the child out of the classroom without further enquiring about her fate...The court considers that the above circumstances are proved by the following evidence:
As can be seen from [the applicant’s] submissions...during a lesson [Ms. I] refused to do a task, saying that she had already completed it at the last lesson. [The applicant] told her that she had not been prepared for the last lesson. [Ms I.] blamed [the applicant] for having lost her exercise book...Since [Ms I.] was getting stressed and disrupting the lesson, [the applicant] suggested she go to the school cafeteria and have some tea...
As can be seen from the complaint addressed by [Ms I.’s mother] to [the local administration] and [the school principal] the incident happened in the following manner:
[The applicant] demanded [Ms I.] hand in an exercise book containing a written task...accusing her of having failed to do the task. The child said that she had already given in the exercise book and if it had been lost, she could do the written task again...[The applicant] rudely refused her request. Moreover, [the applicant] demanded that [Ms I.] do an additional written task...When the child replied that that was not fair, [the applicant] started shouting and threatening her in the presence of the rest of the class that if she continued to argue, [the applicant] would establish an inquiry commission to ascertain [Ms I.’s] lack of knowledge of the subject matter and suggested that [Ms I.] leave the classroom ‘to cool down’...
[The court notes that] the claimant does not contest the fact of the child’s expulsion from the classroom and [her] requests concerning the exercise book...However, she recounts another version of the course of events alleging that there had been no violence in her behaviour. [In the court’s view] the applicant’s above-mentioned allegations do not correspond to the evidence collected in the case.
The court cannot agree with the claimant’s allegations that she did not use psychological abuse ...[The applicant] put pressure on the child, accused her of a lie in the presence of her classmates and thereby humiliated her...She also threatened her with establishing an inquiry commission in order to ascertain “her lack of knowledge” and, in so doing, caused her mental suffering...
The court also examined a medical certificate attesting that in early February 2002 [Ms I.], born in 1986, attended a medical clinic complaining of headaches, insomnia and depression, after experiencing the stressful events at school. During the medical examination a reading of high blood pressure had been established, the patient had been prescribed anti-anxiety medication and had been recommended to undergo psychological counselling and to avoid stressful situations and excessive physical exercise.
Therefore, the allegations of the use of discipline involving the physical and psychological abuse of the student were proved to be founded.
The claimant’s allegations that her dismissal was due to her complaints lodged against the school principal have not been proved during the hearing...As [the  applicant] submitted, since 2000, she, together with other teachers of the school, had lodged numerous complaints with the relevant authorities including the President’s Office, criticising the school principal... [The court notes that] upon these complaints, several inspections were carried out which failed to discover any breaches of law [by the school principal]. The material in the case file also shows that no disciplinary or administrative proceedings were brought against [the principal].
 The submissions [of the witnesses given on the applicant’s behalf] also do not prove that [the applicant] was dismissed [for that reason]. The above-mentioned witnesses testified about the methods of general education in the school, [the applicant’s] personal and professional qualities and the children’s [negative] attitude towards the applicant’s dismissal and alleged that there had been conflicts between the teachers in the school. However, these statements have no connection with [the applicant’s] dismissal, which occurred as a result of her ‘use of methods of discipline involving physical and psychological abuse of students’. Therefore, the court cannot rely on these submissions in its judgment...
In these circumstances, the court considers that [the applicant’s] dismissal was in accordance with section 56 of the Law on Education and Article 366 of the Labour Code. Evidence of the use of methods of discipline involving physical and psychological abuse of the student was established and proved by witnesses’ testimonies as well as by the medical certificate submitted showing the child’s state of health following the incident. [The applicant’s] dismissal procedure was observed; the claimant’s allegations about the dismissal being due to her criticisms [of the school principal] were not proved during the hearings....” 18.  The applicant and her lawyer appealed to the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”). On 10 October 2003 the City Court held a public hearing. It does not appear that any request to the contrary was made by the parties. The appeal court examined and rejected the applicant’s request for seven people to be heard as witnesses. The City Court found that it had been the prerogative of the first-instance court to call witnesses and that the fact that the proceedings had been conducted in camera before that court was not a valid reason for quashing the judgment. Upholding the first-instance judgment, the appeal court summarised in the text of its decision, the findings of the first-instance court concerning the examination of the evidence submitted, including testimonies and Ms I.’s medical certificate.