Примеры использования Communication alleges на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In addition, the communication alleges that the energy strategy was approved without public consultation, in contravention of article 7 of the Convention.
The communication alleges that the criminal proceedings against Mr. Peltier displayed substantial flaws of such gravity as to give an arbitrary character to his imprisonment.
The authors further state that their communication alleges a violation of article 26 in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Covenant, and is therefore not solely based on article 2, paragraph 3.
For these reasons, the communication alleges that the Party concerned fails to comply with article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention, especially with respect to the review of issues under article 6, paragraphs 3 and 8.
The communication alleges that Mr. Akhimien did not receive or was denied adequate medical care in that the medical staff did not diagnose that he had a diabetic condition of which he was not aware.
The communication alleges that public bodies in Ireland failed to provide key information on REFIT I on request, and routinely engaged in dissemination of false information on the environment in relation to this programme.
The communication alleges that the Party concerned has breached articles 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention by failing to provide information on the state of the environment and the status of protected species which would be impacted by the AWPR.
Finally, the communication alleges that by charging the applicants before the EU Courts with expenses of an uncertain and possibly prohibitive nature in the event of the loss of their case, the EU fails to comply with article 9, paragraph 4, of the Convention.
The communication alleges that the Austrian legal system lacks a clear, transparent and consistent framework implementing the access to justice provisions of the Convention; hence, according to the communication, the Party concerned fails to comply with article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Specifically, the communication alleges non-compliance by the Party concerned with respect to three decisions: the decision to build a new NPP; the decision(s) regarding the location, technology, and other matters for the proposed construction of the NPP; and the adoption of the energy strategy.
The communication alleges that the Party concerned failed to provide for public participation in the decision-making processes that led to the construction by Communauté Urbaine Marseille Provence Métropole(CUMPM) of a centre for the processing of waste by incineration at Fos-sur-Mer.
The communication alleges that the Party concerned fails to implement article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention with respect to access to administrative or judicial review procedures for environmental non-governmental organizations and members of the public to challenge acts that contravene national environmental legislation.
The communication alleges that by failing to make information available to the public with regard to the hydropower plant project on the Neman River in Belarus(hereinafter,"the HPP project"), which is currently under implementation, the Party concerned failed to comply with article 4, paragraph 1, and article 6, paragraph 6, of the Convention.
Regarding the decisions relating to the NPP, the communication alleges that the Party concerned failed to comply with article 3, paragraph 2, and article 4, paragraphs 1, 4 and 6, of the Convention, because the authorities did not assist members of the public in seeking access to information and did not respond to requests for information concerning the project.
On 25 May 2011, the State party submitted that the author's communication alleges that the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories contravened articles 1, 2, paragraphs(d) and(e), 14 paragraph 2(h), 15 and 16, paragraph 1(h), of the Convention by virtue of the acts or omissions of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and the Rae-Edzo Housing Authority.
In particular, the communication alleges that the Crossrail Act 2008 misapplied the requirements for obtaining consent relating to conservation areas and listed buildings, which normally provided for public participation, and thus that the Party concerned is not in compliance with article 6, paragraph 7, of the Convention.
The communication alleges that, following the facts described in that communication, the Party concerned now failed to comply with article 9, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, of the Convention, because recent jurisprudence of the Cassation Court has reversed its earlier jurisprudence with respect to the standing of NGOs in environmental matters.
Moreover, the communication alleges that the Party concerned has breached article 6 by failing to seek public comment on the proposed route for the AWPR in an open way, by failing to provide information on new objectives for the proposal and by failing to invite the public to submit any comments, information, analyses or opinions on the proposed route.
The communication alleges that the Party concerned has failed to comply with the Convention because the Commission approved State aid for Ireland's REFIT I to support electricity sourced from renewable energy, while Ireland had failed to respect the SEA and EIA Directives by, among other things, not subjecting its NREAP to SEA.
In addition, the communication alleges that, by failing to provide environmental NGOs with the possibility to challenge acts and omissions of private persons and public authorities which contravene environmental law when the"impairment of rights" criterion is not satisfied, the Party concerned fails to comply with article 9, paragraph 3, in conjunction with article 9, paragraph 4, of the Convention.
The communication alleges that public authorities in Ireland and the Party concerned failed to disseminate information concerning the Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff I(REFIT I) programme in Ireland-- a programme supported by the Party concerned both by means of direct funding and by approving State aid-- in a timely, accurate and sufficient manner.
The communication alleges that the law and practice of the Party concerned provides for a restrictive definition of who may be parties in environmental decision-making due to the so called"impairment of rights doctrine", thus restricting standing for individuals in a number of cases, relating, among others, to land-use and building permits.
The communication alleges that by applying the"individual concern" standing criterion for private individuals and NGOs that challenge decisions of EU institutions before the Court of Justice of the European Union(the European Court of Justice(hereinafter the ECJ) and the General Court or Court of First Instance(CFI))(hereinafter, collectively, the EU Courts), the EU fails to comply with article 9, paragraphs 2- 5, of the Convention.
The communication alleges that, with regard to the Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant(hereinafter,"the Mochovce NPP"), by failing to provide for public participation in the decision-making process for a construction permit additional to the one already granted in 1986, as well as related permits in 2008, the Party concerned failed to comply with article 6, paragraphs 1, 4 and 10 of the Convention.
In addition, the communication alleges that the Party concerned, by providing financial assistance to Ireland for the interconnector project, one of the elements for the implementation of REFIT I, failed to comply with the Convention because the project was not subject to environmental impact assessment(EIA), as required under EU law, and did not comply with the public participation provisions of the Convention.
In addition, the communication alleges that as a result of the Crossrail Act misapplying the requirements for obtaining consent relating to conservation areas and listed buildings, there were no planning or Conservation Area Consents or Listed Building Consents to challenge and this, according to the communication, constitutes non-compliance with article 9, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, as well as with article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
The communication alleges that by limiting the communicant's opportunity to participate in the decision-making on and to express its opinion during the conduct of the state environmental review(expertiza) for the"South West Roads Project: Western Europe-Western China International Transit Corridor"(Road Corridor Project), in the South Kazakhstan Oblast, a project financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development(IBRD), among others, the Party concerned failed to comply with the provisions of article 6, paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, of the Convention.
The first allows an author to bring a communication alleging a violation of any of the provisions of the Covenant.
The Committee had also received two further communications alleging noncompliance by Parties with provisions of the Convention on public participation and access to justice.
The Government replied to all communications alleging, inter alia, that allegations were false and providing information on the situations referred to.