Примеры использования Communication is incompatible на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party contends that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.
The State party argues that the Committee lacks jurisdiction over the relevant violations in respect of Denmark and, therefore, the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
The State party concludes that the communication is incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant, and, therefore, inadmissible.
The Committee therefore lacks jurisdiction over the alleged violations with regard to Denmark and the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
Consequently, this part of the communication is incompatible with that provision and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
As a consequence, the Committee lacks jurisdiction over the claimed violations in respect of Canada and the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
Furthermore, the communication is incompatible with the principles of international customary law and the international obligations of the State party.
There was a concurring opinion that also found the said communication inadmissible but under article 4, paragraph 2(b),stating that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
The State party maintains that this part of the communication is incompatible with the Covenant and is therefore inadmissible ratione materiae.
It affirms that the Committee is entitled, under its rules of procedure, to examine whether a prima facie consideration of the facts andthe relevant legislation reveals that the communication is incompatible with the Convention.
The State party further argues that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.
The communication is incompatible with the Covenant insofar as the right that the author wishes to see enforced is not covered by the right to a fair trial provided for in article 14, paragraph 1; nor is it a right protected elsewhere in the Covenant.
The State party argues, as to admissibility,that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, and that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant as well as manifestly illfounded.
It also considers that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The State party refers to general comment No. 31(2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant and to the Committee's case law in this respect andconsiders that this part of the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.
The State party maintains that the communication is incompatible with the Convention in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2(b) of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee takes note of the State party's request that, pursuant to article 99, paragraph 4, of its rules of procedure, it reconsider its admissibility decision of 6 October 2009 andfind the communication inadmissible on the grounds that the authors have failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant and that it constitutes an abuse of the right of submission.
This part of the communication is incompatible ratione materiae with article 14 of the Covenant and thus inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Moreover, on the basis of its arguments on the merits,the State party maintains that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and should therefore be considered inadmissible.
It adds that the communication is incompatible with the Covenant with regard to the alleged violation of articles 16, 23 and 26 and that these parts of the communication should therefore be found inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Also, to the extent that the author contends a violation of the protection of ownership of a part of the contentious properties, her communication is incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant, given that the right to property is not, as such, protected by the Covenant.
It argues that this part of the communication is incompatible with article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant, since this provision only applies to judicial decisions of a single State and not of different States.
In the alternative, the State party submits that the allegations should be dismissed as inadmissible on the grounds that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to article 22(2) of the Convention and rule 107(c) of the rules of procedure.
The State party submits that the communication is incompatible ratione materiae with article 18, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, protecting the rights of persons to have their children educated in conformity with their religious convictions.
In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Covenant, and that it is therefore inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
The State party argues that the communication is incompatible with the Convention ratione materiae, since the central claim is that the Danish authorities did not interpret and apply section 266(b) of the Criminal Code correctly.
Accordingly, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Covenant, and that it is therefore inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
The State party further reiterates that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol, in particular with regard to the author's claims under article 2, paragraph 3, and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
Accordingly, this part of the communication is incompatible ratione materiae with that provision and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
We therefore conclude that the author's communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention pursuant to article 4, paragraph 2(b) of the Optional Protocol.