Примеры использования Complaint inadmissible на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In its decision of 25 November 1996, the Commission found the complaint inadmissible.
Accordingly, the Committee considers that part of the complaint inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
On 3 March 2010, the complainant observed that the State party had not substantiated its request that the Committee should find the complaint inadmissible.
The State party considers the complaint inadmissible because it says that the complainant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
Of the 92 completed matters, the Panel closed 41 through opinions on the merits andthe remaining 51 through determinations finding the complaint inadmissible.
Люди также переводят
Concerning irregularities in the extradition proceedings,it found the complaint inadmissible ratione personae in the sense of article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Reports or investigations under other international mechanisms and procedures addressing or touching upon the same orsimilar cases do not generally render the complaint inadmissible.
However, the Human Rights Court declared the complaint inadmissible because it found that SEGI was not a victim of any violation of rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.
If the complaint is ruled inadmissible, the complaint ceases; however,the complainant may seek a review of the decision if the circumstances that deemed the complaint inadmissible no longer exist.
He argues that the Court explicitly orimplicitly ruled his constitutional complaint inadmissible, arguing that it did not distinguish between aspects of admissibility and merits.
In his comments on the State party's submission, the author submits that he presented a complaint to the Constitutional Courton 28 January 1992, but the Court declared his complaint inadmissible on 22 April 1992.
The State party therefore asks the Committee to declare the complaint inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in conformity with article 22, paragraph 5(b), of the Convention.
In the State party's view, the fact that the complainants have not shown that there are substantial prima facie grounds to believe that they personally would face a real andforeseeable risk of torture in Mexico renders their complaint inadmissible.
The State party had requested the Committee to declare the complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the complainant had abused the right to submit such a communication and had not exhausted all available domestic remedies.
The Committee shall include in its annual report the text of its final decisions, including its views under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention,as well as the text of any decision declaring a complaint inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention.
At later stages,if the Court declares your complaint inadmissible and in turn offers the concerned state to explain its position regarding your complaint, the correspondence will be conducted in French or English.
It refers to the Committee's earlier decision in a case about the author, andrecalls that failure to pursue a section 15 claim domestically in relation to a particular discrimination complaint makes that complaint inadmissible before the Committee.
The Committee declared this complaint inadmissible, having concluded that the complainant did not have locus standi to act on behalf of the alleged victims in accordance with article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the domestic remedies regarding the alleged violation of article 17 of the Covenant have not been exhausted andtherefore declares the complaint inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol.
The Court will not declare a complaint inadmissible on this ground if it is based on facts which have been examined by another international procedure or by the Court itself, if the complaint raised in relation to those facts is a different one.
On 26 April 2000, the author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights, in which she set out the above facts.On 11 October 2001, the European Court declared her complaint inadmissible, on the grounds that she had not exhausted domestic remedies.
The Committee has found the complaint inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies without first having resolved the issue of its competence, which is called into question by the State party on the basis of its reservation to the Optional Protocol.
The authors applied to the European Commission on Human Rights, alleging inter alia violations of article 1 of Protocol No. 1(right to property) and article 14(non-discrimination) of the European Convention.On 10 July 2002, the European Court of Human Rights declared the author's complaint inadmissible.
I wish to indicate my disagreement with the Committee's decision declaring this complaint inadmissible ratione materiae on the grounds that the complainant's claim of a possible violation of articles 2 and 16, should he be expelled, is incompatible with the Convention art. 22, para. 2.
It concludes that the complainant's failure to seek judicial review with respect to the humanitarian andcompassionate and PRRA decisions, or to pursue his current leave application with due diligence, makes his complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Even if the Committee held the complaint inadmissible simply for failure to seek legal aid, the complaint would not, according to the State party, become admissible simply because legal aid was subsequently sought, as other reasons of inadmissibility may still apply.
The permanent secretariat can:- declare the complaint admissible; referred to the complaint committee;- declare the complaint partially admissible;referred to the complaint committee;- declare the complaint inadmissible: case closed;- propose an amicable settlement; solution found together with management of centre.
The Committee declared this complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, having concluded that the complainant did not advance sufficient arguments which would justify his failure to avail himself of the possibility to apply for judicial review of his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment decision, or of the humanitarian and compassionate decision in his case.
The Committee notes that the authors assert that the State party violated their right to an effective remedy under article 2,paragraph 3 of the Covenant because the Constitutional Court erroneously declared their complaint inadmissible due to untimeliness, because the domestic court proceedings were impermissibly lengthy and because the Prosecutor General declined to file an appeal on points of law in response to their petition.
The first author lodged a constitutional complaint withthe Austrian Constitutional Court(Verfassungsgerichtshof), which declared the complaint inadmissible on 28 November 1997, since it had no prospect of success in the light of the Court's jurisprudence regarding compulsory membership in the Chamber of Commerce, and referred the case to the Supreme Administrative Court(Verwaltungsgerichtshof) to review the calculation of the annual fees.