Примеры использования Recalls its view на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In this connection, the Committee recalls its views on the matter as indicated in its report A/53/7.
The Committee recalls its view that it would be preferable if the budget outline could be prepared after the review and approval of such plan instrument as the General Assembly may wish to establish and its request that the timing of the submission and consideration of both parts of the"strategic framework" be clarified in the report containing the mock-ups see A/58/7/Add.5, para. 12.
Regarding the proposals for the establishment of new positions and the redeployment of existing positions in UNAMI,the Advisory Committee recalls its view that the Secretary-General should, on an ongoing basis, be requested to review staffing requirements to determine whether existing functions remain necessary, that, in general, positions that are no longer required should be abolished and that any new positions should be fully justified A/67/604, para. 28.
The Committee recalls its Views in previous communications and notes that the State party has provided no response to the author's allegations on the merits.
In this connection, the Committee recalls its views on the need for the Secretariat to establish the scope and criteria for contracting out for selected technical functions.
It however recalls its view that the considerable investments made in communications infrastructure should lead to reduced requirements for travel.
In this connection, the Committee recalls its view reflected in paragraph 42 of report A/47/990 regarding the establishment of financial periods of 12 months for peace-keeping operations.
The Committee recalls its view that the observations and recommendations of the Board provide important insights in terms of resource and management issues pertaining to peacekeeping.
As a matter of overall policy, the Committee recalls its view that the continuing requirement for posts that have been vacant for two years or longer should be reviewed and justifications provided for their retention in the proposed programme budget.
The Committee recalls its Views in the cases of Adam, Blazek, Marik, Kriz, Gratzinger and Ondracka where it held that article 26 had been violated, and that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to meet the condition of Czech citizenship for the restitution of their property or alternatively for its compensation.
The Advisory Committee recalls its view that the considerable investments made in communications infrastructure should lead to reduced requirements for travel.
The Committee recalls its Views in the numerous Czech property restitution cases, where it held that article 26 had been violated, and that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to obtain Czech citizenship as a prerequisite for the restitution of their property or, alternatively, for the payment of appropriate compensation.
The Committee recalls its view on the need for greater use, where appropriate and feasible, of national staff in peacekeeping operations.
The Committee recalls its view that the main focus of the Expert Group review was to be on judicial rather than administrative management.
The Committee recalls its view that the provision of sufficient entry-level posts is a fundamental component of effective human resources management.
The Committee recalls its Views in the case of El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and notes that the State party has provided no response to the author's allegations.
The Advisory Committee recalls its view that resource reductions should not undermine the operational requirements of missions and the implementation of their respective mandates.
The Committee recalls its view that the construction and renovation phases could start, as soon as feasible, after the capital master plan has been completed see A/68/585, para. 14.
The Advisory Committee recalls its views as indicated in paragraph 6 of its report E/ICEF/2000/AB/L.4 of 5 April 2000 on the timing of the submission of the support budget to the Executive Board.
In particular, the Committee recalls its view that polygamy violates the dignity of women(see the Committee's general comment No. 28(2000), paragraph 24), and constitutes a violation of article 3 of the Covenant arts. 2, 3 and 26.
The Committee further recalls its view that, while it is not separately mentioned in the list of non-derogable rights in article 4, paragraph 2, this norm of general international law is not subject to derogation.
The Committee also recalls its view that it is the responsibility of the Secretary-General to inform the General Assembly thoroughly and accurately about whether there are sufficient resources to implement a new activity see A/54/7, para. 67.
In addition, the Committee recalls its view, with respect to the recruitment of staff, that a meaningful reduction in the time taken to recruit will be achieved only if the causes of those delays are addressed and those responsible are held accountable A/67/545, para. 17.
The Advisory Committee recalls its view that, in looking for efficiencies in rations management, the Secretariat should not reduce the quantity or quality of the food available but should rather focus on arrangements for transportation, warehousing and storage of rations.
The Advisory Committee recalls its views in paragraph 4 of its report in document A/54/657 that proposals to strengthen the capacity of the NGO Section had been procedurally mishandled by the Secretariat and that there was a lack of coordination between Secretariat units.
In addition, the Committee recalls its view that the continuing requirement for posts that have been vacant for two years or longer should be reviewed and that justifications should be provided for their retention in the proposed programme budget. Otherwise, they should be proposed for abolishment A/68/7, chap. I, para. 107.
The Committee further recalls its Views in the cases of Simunek, Adam, Blazek, Des Fours Walderode and Gratzinger, where it held that article 26 of the Covenant had been violated and that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to meet the condition of Czech citizenship for the restitution of their property or alternatively for its compensation.
The Committee recalls its Views in the cases of Simunek, Adam, Blazek, Marik, Kriz, Gratzinger and Ondracka where it held that article 26 had been violated, and that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the authors to obtain Czech citizenship as a prerequisite for the restitution of their property or, alternatively, for the payment of appropriate compensation.
The Committee recalls its Views in the cases of Simunek, Adam, Blazek, Marik, Kriz, Gratzinger and Zdenek and Ondracka where it held that article 26 had been violated, and that it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require the author to obtain Czech citizenship as a prerequisite for the restitution of his property or, alternatively, for the payment of appropriate compensation.
In this connection, the Committee recalls its view, stated in its report on results-based budgeting that for programme managers to achieve expected accomplishments, budgetary levels must be commensurate with the level of approved programmes A/55/543, para. 18; see also the Committee's first report on the proposed programme budget for the biennium 1998-1999,5 paras. 10 and 27.