Примеры использования Austrian reservation на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Austrian reservations to international human rights conventions were regularly re-examined.
The author's claims are therefore inadmissible under articles 3 and5 of the Optional Protocol, read in combination with the Austrian reservation. .
It follows that the Austrian reservation does not bar the Committee from examining the author's claims under article 14, paragraph 1.
The author concludes that the communication is admissible in thelight of article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol, since the Austrian reservation does not come into play.
The Austrian reservation was therefore inapplicable, by logical implication, insofar as the communication relates to his children's rights under article 26 of the Covenant.
It considers that the Committee's competence to examine the communication isprecluded by article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol read in conjunction with the Austrian reservation to that provision.
He insists that the Austrian reservation does not apply to his communication since the same matter was never"examined" by the European Commission.
In the State party's opinion, the fact that the European Court rejected the application as being inadmissible, does not mean that the Court has not"examined" the author's complaints,as required by the Austrian reservation. .
The Austrian reservation concerning article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol thus precluded the Committee from considering the author's claims.
In view of the interpretation given by the Committee to the word"examined" in the Austrian reservation in the case of Pauger v. Austria, it is submitted that these procedural steps did not constitute an"examination" of the case.
The Austrian reservation to article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol was consequently inapplicable, as the same matter had never been examined by the European Court, within the meaning of that provision.
According to the author, a rejection on purely procedural grounds cannot be considered an examination, within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol,read in conjunction with the Austrian reservation.
Therefore, be inappropriate to deny the Austrian reservation its validity and continued scope of application on the mere basis of an organizational reform of the Strasbourg organs.
It considers that, insofar as the first author is concerned, the Committee's competence to examine the case is precluded by article 5, paragraph 2(a),of the Optional Protocol read in conjunction with the relevant Austrian reservation.
It would, therefore, be inappropriate to deny the Austrian reservation its validity and continued scope of application merely because of the organizational reform of the review mechanism.
Finally, the State party submits that the fact that the European Court did not inform the first author of its intention to dismiss his application does not constitute a reason for which the Austrian reservation could not apply in the present case.
With regard to the Austrian reservation to article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol, the author argues that the same matter"has not been examined by the European Commission of Human Rights.
The aim of the drafters of the reservation is said to be irrelevant, because the clear and ordinary meaning of the Austrian reservation does not permit having resort to supplemental means of treaty interpretation within the meaning of article 32 of the Vienna Convention.
The authors recall that the Austrian reservation to article 5(2)(a) of the Optional Protocol is the only one explicitly referring to the"European Commission of Human Rights" instead of"another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
The authors conclude that the communication is admissible under article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol, insofar as the first author is concerned,because the same matter is not being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement and since the Austrian reservation does not apply.
Consequently, the Austrian reservation to article 26 does not affect the Committee's competence to examine whether a distinction made between citizens and aliens amounts to prohibited discrimination under article 26 of the Covenant on other grounds than those covered also by the CERD.
The authors reject the State party's argument that the new European Court simply replaced the former European Commission and that the Austrian reservation, despite its wording, should cover cases in which the same matter was examined by the new Court, on the basis that the new Court's competencies are broader than those of the former Commission.
He compares the Austrian reservation to similar but broader reservations to article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol made by 16 other States parties to the European Convention, and submits that the State party is the only one that refers to an examination"by the European Commission of Human Rights.
Moreover, the authors argue that, in any event, it appeared from the reference, in the European Court's decision, to the letter of 10 July 1998 of the secretariat that the Court rejected the application as inadmissible ratione materiae with article 11 of the Convention, which cannot, however,be considered an examination within the meaning of the Austrian reservation, in accordance with the Committee's jurisprudence.
Any attempt to broaden the scope of the Austrian reservation should be rejected, as the Committee disposes of adequate tools to prevent an improper use of parallel proceedings, such as the concepts of"substantiation of claims" and"abuse of the right to petition", in addition to article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee notes that, the authors, based on the reference in the European Court's decision to the letter of the European Commission's secretariat, explaining the possible obstacles to admissibility, argue that the application was declared inadmissible ratione materiae with article 11 of the Convention, andthat it has therefore not been"examined" within the meaning of the Austrian reservation.
Any attempt to broaden the scope of the Austrian reservation must therefore be rejected, especially since the Committee disposes of adequate procedural devices to prevent an improper use of parallel proceedings at its disposal, such as the concepts of"substantiation of claims" and"abuse of the right to petition", in addition to article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol.
Since the Austrian reservation, pursuant to the ordinary meaning of its wording, clearly refers to an examination by the European Commission of Human Rights, no room is left for an interpretation based on its context or object and purpose, let alone the supplemental means of treaty interpretation in article 32 of the Vienna Convention travaux préparatoires and circumstances of treaty conclusion.
With respect to the Austrian reservation, the authors reiterate that nothing prevented the State party from entering a reservation upon ratification of the Optional Protocol precluding the Committee from examining communications if the same matter has already been examined"under the procedure provided for by the European Convention", as recommended by the Committee of Ministers, or from using the broader formulation of a previous examination by"another procedure of international investigation or settlement", as other States parties to the European Convention did.
All legal disputes arising from, in connection with or relating to the reservation or rent or use of equipment covered in these terms and conditions is to be settled exclusively by Austrian courts of law.