Примеры использования Failed to appeal на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
After his application was rejected, he failed to appeal the decision.
However, the author failed to appeal it in accordance with the criminal procedure norms of the Russian Federation.
Robert Smith, reportedly scheduled to be executed on 29 January 1998 and who allegedly failed to appeal his death sentence(15 January 1998);
The State party argues that he failed to appeal to the General Prosecutor's Office against the refusal of the prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings.
The State party argues that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, since he failed to appeal the decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority to the High Court.
The author also failed to appeal the negative decision of 3 November 2009 regarding his administrative objection to his detention.
The State party also submits that the author failed to appeal the prosecutorial decree of 10 October 2001.
First, because he failed to appeal the Federal Court Trial Division's decision of January 1994, in which the court dismissed his application for review based on bias of the commissioners, to the Federal Court of Appeal. .
The Committee, however, notes the State party's argument that the author failed to appeal the Court's decision and that such failure can only be attributed to his own behaviour.
First, because he failed to appeal the Federal Court Trial Division's decision of January 1994, in which the court dismissed his application for review based on bias of the commissioners, to the Federal Court of Appeal, which he could have done without leave.
The Committee also notes that the defendant had the opportunity to submit written papersto the High Court, acting pro se, and that she failed to appeal her denial of legal aid before the Legal Aid Review Committee.
Moreover, the State party notes that the author failed to appeal the judgement of the District Court of 18 May 1994 which rejected his claim for nullity of the agreement of restitution of the properties.
With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies,the Committee notes that the State party challenges the admissibility on the grounds that the complainant failed to appeal in court the decisions of 1 February 2008 and of 6 February 2011.
The Moscow Church of Scientology once again failed to appeal against the refusal by the Ministry of Justice to re-register them.
On the issue of non-exhaustion with respect to the author's request for a stay of the deportation order to the United States,the State party submits that the author failed to appeal the ruling of the Superior Court of Quebec to the Court of Appeal. .
Moreover, it is stated that the complainant failed to appeal to the Constitutional Court(Tribunal Constitucional) by way of amparo.
The Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies,as the authors have not awaited the outcome of their appeal, and some of them have failed to appeal the refusal of their claim.
The Committee notes the State party's argument that the author failed to appeal to the Prosecutor's office under the supervisory review procedure of section 436 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Another verification conducted by the Prosecutor's Office in 2005 and 2007 following the author's complaints about inhuman conditions of detention also established that his allegations were without merits,and the author failed to appeal any of these decisions in accordance with the procedure established by domestic law.
The Committee notes the State party's contention that the complainants failed to appeal against the Migration Court's decision of 3 December 2008 to the Migration Court of Appeal see para. 6.15 above.
The State party also points out that Mr. Protsko has failed to submit a supervisory review complaint to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court, and that Mr. Tolchin has failed to appeal directly to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court under the supervisory review proceedings.
The State party further submits that the author failed to appeal to the Federal Court the negative decision by the Immigration Appeal Division of 25 October 2006, and therefore failed to exhaust an effective remedy.
It submits that the issue raised by the author was examined and dismissed by the European Court of Human Rights,which noted that the author had failed to appeal in accordance with relevant formalities and that therefore domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
The Committee noted that the complainants had failed to appeal against the Migration Court's decision to the Migration Court of Appeal and that they had provided no arguments to the effect that an appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal would have been unlikely to bring any relief.
With regard to the author's allegations under article 9, paragraph 4, of the Covenant,the Committee notes that the author failed to appeal the detention order and did not raise the issue of unlawful detention at any point during his trial.
In cases when the person has failed to appeal against the expulsion order or the appeal has been declined but the person remains in the country, the Head of the Citizenship and Migration Board or the head of the territorial unit of the Board may adopt a decision on the forcible expulsion of the person.
Moreover, although the author filed different claims before the courts in an attempt to receive compensation for his loss of property,the State party has noted that he failed to appeal any of the first instance court judgements, or when he did, he abandoned the appeal. .
Secondly, the State party argues that the author failed to appeal to the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board of Canada or to challenge before the courts both the National Parole Board's decision not to release him before the expiration of his full sentence and the annual reviews of that decision.
The Committee has noted that the State party challenged theadmissibility of the communication, arguing that the complainant failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, as he failed to appeal the Prime Minister's decision to the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court for abuse of power.
The Committee observes that the State party objects to the admissibility of the author's allegation under article 7 on the grounds that he failed to appeal in court the ruling of 25 December 2008, in which the authorities refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the respective bailiffs for lack of corpus delicti.