Примеры использования Petitioner could на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
According to the State party, the petitioner could have pursued civil claims for compensation.
The State party indicated the recourse procedures of which the petitioner could avail himself.
The only decision the petitioner could apply to review would be the decision to remove him to Iran.
The concept ofa safe third country, which allowed officials to decline to consider an application for asylum on the grounds that the petitioner could apply in another country, was also cause for concern.
It found that the petitioner could return to Somalia and live outside Mogadishu, in the Galkayo area in northeastern Somalia.
He submits that in P.Q.L. v. Canada,b the Committee found that all domestic remedies had been exhausted despite the fact that the petitioner could have made an application for humanitarian and compassionate relief.
However, the petitioner could have filed a complaint with the Ministry of Economy, which is the central body of State administration in the field of consumer protection.
The Committee decided that the case was inadmissible, but that,pursuant to rule 93, paragraph 2, of the Committee's rules of procedure, the petitioner could resubmit the case if he was still dissatisfied following the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
On the contrary, the petitioner could have applied to the courts for a review of whether the DPP view of the scope of section 266(b)(1) or of the Ministry's view of his standing was correct.
This ruling followed the court's assessment that a merits-based review, as required by the Court of Appeal in the matter of A, K, M, Q and G v H.M. Treasury,was precluded because the petitioner could not know the full basis for his listing.
The State party argues that by reporting the incident the petitioner could have established whether she had been exposed to discrimination and at the same time received redress.
The petitioner could have requested the institution of criminal proceedings under section 267 against his employer and, by doing so, could have obtained a decision on whether his former employer had made the reported statements and, subject to fulfilling the conditions of section 267, a conviction of Mr. Christensen.
In a submission of 6 April 2001,the State party reiterates that since the original decision of 19 March 1997 was no longer enforceable, the petitioner could make a new application for a residence permit, which, as of the date of the submission, had not yet been done.
In this case, the petitioner could have argued that the bank acted in contravention of the Act against Discrimination in its treatment of her loan application and that the bank had thus also acted in contravention of"good marketing practices.
The Committee took note of theState party's argument that, despite the discontinuation of proceedings under section 266(b) of the Danish Criminal Code, the petitioner could have requested the institution of criminal proceedings against the employer under section 267 of the Criminal Code.
Firstly, the petitioner could bring an action against Fair Insurance A/S, claiming that it acted in contravention of the law by exposing him to racial discrimination, and thus request damages for both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss.
It has taken note of the State party's argument that,despite the discontinuation of proceedings under section 266(b) of the Criminal Code, the petitioner could have requested the institution of criminal proceedings against his former employer under the general provision on defamatory statements section 267 of the Criminal Code.
According to the State party, the petitioner could have brought an action against the bank, claiming that it acted in contravention of the law by exposing the petitioner to racial discrimination, and the petitioner can also claim damages for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss.
Ms. Šimonović, elaborating on Mr. Flinterman's comments on the status of the Optional Protocol in New Zealand law,asked whether an individual petitioner could invoke specific rights conferred by the Convention directly in court, or whether that petitioner must instead invoke the same specific rights through a national law in which they were enshrined.
Furthermore, the petitioner could have filed a complaint against the procedure and the result of the investigation carried out by the Inspectorate of Commerce with the Central Inspectorate of the Slovak Inspectorate of Commerce or with the Ministry of Economy, to which the Slovak Inspectorate of Commerce reports.
In addition, contrary to the State party's assertions, the petitioner could not have sought a remedy before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, then a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and then judicial review.
The Committee concluded that the petitioner could not qualify as a victim since the content of the leaflets had not directly and personally affected her and found, therefore, that the communication was inadmissible ratione personae under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Furthermore, the State party claims that the petitioner could have instituted an action against the bank under the rules of the Danish Marketing Practices Act, as a private business may not perform acts contrary to"good marketing practices.
The convening of only one meeting per year, in which petitioners could speak for only five minutes, was not enough to denounce 116 years of colonialist crimes.
Had they done this, the petitioners could have joined their action for criminal defamation to the criminal proceedings already under way against Mr. Sjolie.
The advice concluded that the petitioners could be considered to have voluntarily abandoned their posts and recommended undertaking an individual process for discharge.
Besides this body, the petitioner can take his or her claim to exercise his rights to the various courts and jurisdictions of the judicial system;
Petitioners could be represented by counsel of their choice at every stage of the proceedings and had the right to examine the unclassified evidence against them.
Petitioners could be represented by counsel of their choice at every stage of the proceedings and were entitled to be informed of the evidence against them if it was unclassified.
Petitioners can be invited to attend public sessions of the Petitions Committee to present their matter personally before the Committee.