Примеры использования An arbitrary interference на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
It was repealed in May 1992 because, given its width,it seemed likely to permit an arbitrary interference with the right to privacy.
In this respect, it cannot be said that there was an"arbitrary" interference with the author's correspondence within the meaning of article 17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
It also found that the expulsion order anddenial of international protection did not constitute an arbitrary interference with the author's right to family life.
The Committee concludes that there has been an arbitrary interference with the authors' right to family and privacy, in violation of article 17, paragraph 1, and article 23, paragraph 1.
In case No. 1222/2003(Byahuranga v. Denmark)the author claimed that his expulsion to Uganda would constitute an arbitrary interference with his right to family life.
Люди также переводят
The separation of a person from his family by means of his expulsion could be regarded as an arbitrary interference with the family and as a violation of article 17 if in the circumstances of the case the separation of the author from his family and its effects on him were disproportionate to the objectives of removal.
The failure to show due regard to the possible consequences of the forced evictions renders the eviction of the authors an"arbitrary interference" in their homes in violation of article 17 of the Covenant.
The separation of a person from his family by means of his expulsion could be regarded as an arbitrary interference with the family and as a violation of article 17 if in the circumstances of the case the separation of the author from his family and its effects on him were disproportionate to the objectives of removal.
There appear to be no circumstances particular to the author orto his family which would lead the Committee to conclude that his removal from Canada was an arbitrary interference with his family, nor with his privacy or home.
With regard to the authors' allegation that Jessica's return to the United States is an arbitrary interference with the family and home by Australia, under article 17, the State party submits that the authors have not provided evidence of a violation, and thus fail to raise an issue under this provision.
The old law- which gave the power to search for and seize things reasonably suspected of throwing light on the character or activities of the arrested person orhis associates- was thought likely to permit an arbitrary interference with the right to privacy, contrary to article 14 of the Bill of Rights.
It also recalls that the separation of a person from his family by means of expulsion could be regarded as an arbitrary interference with the family and a violation of article 17 if, in the circumstances of the case, the separation of the author from his family and its effects on him were disproportionate to the objectives of the removal.
The authors alleged, inter alia, that the construction of the complex on the contested site would destroy their ancestral burial grounds, which represented an important place in their history, culture and life, andwould constitute an arbitrary interference with their privacy and their family lives, in violation of articles 17 and 23.
While the State party acknowledges that the impugned provisions constitute an arbitrary interference with Mr. Toonen's privacy, the Tasmanian authorities submit that the challenged laws are justified on public health and moral grounds, as they are intended in part to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in Tasmania, and because, in the absence of specific limitation clauses in article 17, moral issues must be deemed a matter for domestic decision.
In case No. 1460/2006(Yklymova v. Turkmenistan), the Committee considered that the searches of the author's home without legal grounds, the deprivation of her telephone contacts and the confiscation of her apartment, passport andID amounted to an arbitrary interference with her privacy, family and home.
Jessica's imminent removal from her family, would amount to an arbitrary interference with Samuel's family and home, contrary to article 17.
Finally, the Committee considers that the searches of the author's home without legal grounds, the deprivation of her telephone contacts, and the confiscation of her apartment, passport andID(see paragraph 3.4 above), in the absence of any pertinent explanation from the State party, amount to an arbitrary interference with her privacy, family, and home within the terms of article 17 of the Covenant.
In case No. 1557/2007(Nystrom et al. v. Australia),the Committee recalled its jurisprudence that the separation of a person from his family by means of expulsion could be regarded as an arbitrary interference with the family and a violation of article 17 if, in the circumstances of the case, the separation and its effects were disproportionate to the objectives of the removal.
With reference to the Views in Stewart v. Canada and Canepa v. Canada,the State party notes that the Committee has decided there that the expulsion of a non-citizen on the basis of his/her criminal record did not constitute an arbitrary interference with the family, despite the existence of family ties in the country of immigration.
Lastly, the Working Group considers that the indictment and prosecution of Elie Dib Ghaled and his spouse for fornication, independently of the charge that they contracted an illegal marriage,represents an arbitrary interference with the right to privacy of the individuals concerned, and amounts to a violation of article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Given that the author's deportation was of a definite nature and that limited financial means existed for the author's family to visit him in Sweden or even be reunited with him in Sweden,the Committee concluded that the deportation constituted an arbitrary interference with his family in relation to the author, contrary to articles 17 and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
Given that the author's deportation is of a definite nature and that limited financial means exist for the author's family to visit him in Sweden or even be reunited with him in Sweden,the Committee concludes that the author's deportation constituted an arbitrary interference with his family in relation to the author, contrary to articles 17 and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
Other restrictions on correspondence shall not constitute an arbitrary or unlawful interference with the detainee's correspondence.
It considers that the treatment suffered by the victim constitutes an arbitrary and unlawful interference with his privacy.
The author notes that he has been a victim of an arbitrary and unlawful interference in his privacy and family.
Freedom from arbitrary interference in an individual's private.
Arbitrary interference with the family; protection as a child.
Guarantee protection against arbitrary interference with privacy;
Article 17- Freedom from arbitrary interference with.
Article 17- Freedom from arbitrary interference with.