84 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights In a more detailed line of decisions, however, the European Court of Human Rights has acknowledged that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6(1) prevents a person from expressly or tacitly waiving the entitlement to have one’s case heard in public.323 Such waiver must, however, be made in an unequivocal way and must be accompanied by minimum safeguards commensurate with the importance of the right to a fair hearing, as well as not running counter to any important public interest.324 In Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium, for example – where the European Court found that the applicants had clearly wanted and claimed a public hearing – refusal to grant a public hearing was held to violate Article 6(1) of the ECHR, since there was no express waiver of the right and since none of the grounds of exclusion of the public existed.325 In Zana v Turkey, the European Court found a violation of Article 6 for failure to unequivocally establish the applicant’s wish to waive the right to public hearing. The fact that the applicant wished to address the court in Kurdish – the European Court determined – in no way could be interpreted as to signify that he implicitly waived his right to defend himself and to appear before the court.326 Tacit waiver of the right to a public hearing will not be found where the law does not provide for the possibility of a public hearing,327 or where the practice of a country is such that there is little chance of securing a public hearing.328 In the case of Håkansson and Sturesson v Sweden, no express waiver of the right to a public hearing was made, but the question arose as to whether there had been a tacit waiver. The case concerned the conduct of a hearing before the Göta Court of Appeal which, despite being held in an appellate court, involved the first and only consideration of the applicants’ complaint by a judicial authority. The applicants had not requested a public hearing, despite the provision in the Code of Judicial Procedure to allow the Göta Court of Appeal to hold hearings in public. The European Court of Human Rights concluded that, since the applicants could have been expected to ask for a public hearing if they had considered this to be important, their failure to do so amounted to an unequivocal waiver of the right to a public hearing before the Court of Appeal.329 4.2 Obstacles to a public hearing Apart from the formal exclusion of the public from a hearing by an order of a judge, there may be other practical factors that have the effect of de facto excluding the public from a hearing. As recognized in the context of other rights and freedoms, factors that amount to a practical hindrance to the enjoyment of rights can contravene human rights in the same 323 H. v Belgium [1987] ECHR 30, para 54. 324 Håkansson and Sturesson v Sweden [1990] ECHR 1, para 66; and Scoppola v Italy [2009] ECHR 1297, para 135; Thompson v the United Kingdom [2004] ECHR 267, para 43; Pfeifer and Plankl v Austria [1992] ECHR 2, para 37. 325 Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium [1981] ECHR 3, para 59. 326 Zana v Turkey [1997] ECHR 94, para 70. 327 Werner v Austria [1997] ECHR 92, paras 45–51. 328 H. v Belgium [1987] ECHR 30, para 54. 329 Håkansson and Sturesson v Sweden [1990] ECHR 1, paras 66–68.