Примеры использования Author challenged на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The author challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation.
By letter received 20 November 2007, the author challenged the State party submission.
Canada, the author challenged his proposed deportation from Canada to Italy.
Throughout his extradition proceedings andin his original communication the author challenged the veracity of the assurances.
Canada(558/93), the author challenged his proposed deportation from Canada to Italy.
The author was invited to comment on the recommendation,the text of which was transmitted to him. On 3 January 1991, the author challenged the recommendation and demanded that the Commission investigate his complaint further.
Although the author challenged this decision, he did not receive a response from the authorities.
Regional Electoral Commissions also subsequently refused to accept these lists, allegedly contrary to article 81 of the Belarus Constitution.On 7 August 2001, the author challenged the'disappearance' in the Mogilev and Brest regions of approximately 24,000 signatures in his support.
On an unspecified date, the author challenged this decision before the Presidium of the Supreme Court.
The author challenged the decision by complaining to the Regional Court in Usti nad Labern, which rejected the complaint on 23 March 2000.
In advancing a second ground for cassation, the author challenged the classification of the acts as a continuing offence.
The author challenged the Appeal Court's decision on constitutional grounds but the Supreme Court rejected his application in a ruling of 15 March 2005.
In both the cassation appeal and the application for amparo, the author challenged all aspects of the judgement rather than only claiming the existence of defects of form.
The author challenged the State party's argument that the decision of the Zhlobin District Court of the Gomel Region was based on national law in force at that time.
The Committee observes that,in his Statement of Claim for constitutional action, the author challenged not only his detention, but also the entire process governing the determination of whether the security certificate is reasonable.
The author challenged this decision, insofar as it denied her a pension for the period between 26 March 1991 and 31 December 1998. On 2 March 2000, the SAIP rejected her objection.
The city administration, however, initiated new proceedings against the author which resulted, on 23 March 1989,in a second decision terminating his employment. The author challenged this decision before the Administrative Tribunal of Nancy on 30 March 1989. On 19 October 1989, the President of the Tribunal ordered the closure of the preliminary inquiry.
On 16 February 2006 the author challenged the Prefect's refusal before the Cergy-Pontoise Administrative Court, which rejected his application on 29 June 2006.
On 3 January 2011 the author challenged the State party's observations on admissibility.
The author challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, but this was dismissed by a single judge of the court on 13 February 1998, and then by the Court of Appeal on 26 August 1998.
On 22 October 2012, the author challenged the State party's observations on admissibility.
The author challenged the 1972 proclamation on the basis that there was no longer a reasonably plausible factual basis for the opinion on which it was grounded, and sought a declaration to that effect.
Moreover, it does not appear from the file before the Committee that the author challenged the participation of the trial senate members, on the basis that they had been designated by the municipality, in his constitutional complaint challenging the trial senate's procedural decision of 13 July 1999.
The author challenged in court the legal definition of his actions, since, inter alia, he did not display any flags and the commemoration took place in woodland and not in a public place.
On 11 April 2005, the author challenged the State party's submission that he was arrested while he was hiding from prosecution.
The author challenged the ruling rejecting his application for reconsideration by lodging a writ of amparo with the Constitutional Court, which was dismissed on 4 December 1998.
On appeal to the High Court, the author challenged these conclusions and the Authority's failure to consider a letter detailing his medical condition received two days before the decision was delivered.
The author challenged his detention alleging the lack of impartiality and independence of the Panel. On 5 September 1994, the Panel rejected the appeal, maintaining that it was an independent judicial body.
According to the court ruling,in court the author challenged the definition of his actions as participation in an unauthorized picket, as he simply participated in a commemoration for the victims of repressions, listened to those speaking and carried a white-red-white flag, which for him symbolizes the Belarusian State.
The author challenged the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal by applying for Statutory Review in accordance with the relevant Civil Procedure Rules before the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Administrative Court.