诉丹麦 英语是什么意思 - 英语翻译

• v. denmark

在 中文 中使用 诉丹麦 的示例及其翻译为 英语

在第1554/2007号案件(El-Hichou诉.丹麦)中，委员会请缔约国在提交人的申诉审议期间，不要执行要求他离境的命令。
In case No. 1554/2007(El-Hichou v. Denmark), the Committee had requested the State party not to execute the order for the author to leave the country while his complaint was being considered.

El-Hichou诉丹麦即是一起这样的确凿案例。委员会恰恰援引这起案例(脚注4)作为下达裁决的典据。
This indeed was the case in El-Hichou v. Denmark, the very one cited by the Committee as authority for its decision(see footnote 4).

在第33/2003(Quereshi诉丹麦(之二))案中，请愿人对原定不予受理的一项请愿提出了后续请愿。
In the case of Quereshi v. Denmark(No. 2)(No. 33/2003), the petitioner brought a followup petition to a petition earlier declared admissible.

(d)应来文人要求，停止审议第43/2012号来文(I.Z.etal.诉丹麦)。
(d) To discontinue, at the author' s request, communication No. 43/2012(I. Z. et al. v. Denmark);

第464/2011号申诉(K.H.诉丹麦)涉及一名阿富汗国民。
Complaint No. 464/2011(K.H. v. Denmark) concerned a national of Afghanistan, who requested asylum upon arrival in Denmark.

在第五十九届会议上，委员会宣布第19/2000号来文(Mostafa诉丹麦)因未用尽国内补救办法而不予受理。
Also at its fifty-ninth session, the Committee declared communication No. 19/2000(Mostafa v. Denmark) inadmissible on account of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

提交人称，他的案子与提交人权事务委员会的关于Ahmad诉丹麦的第1487/2006号来文不具可比性。
The petitioner argues that his case is not comparable to communication No. 1487/2006, Ahmad v. Denmark, submitted to the Human Rights Committee.

委员会以协商一致方式认定，第37/2012号来文(N.诉丹麦)、第49/2013号来文(S.M.G.O诉加拿大)和第59/2013号来文(Y.C.诉丹麦)不可受理。
The Committee found communications No. 37/2012(N. v. Denmark), No. 49/2013(S.M.G.O. v. Canada) and 59/2013(Y.C. v. Denmark) to be inadmissible, by consensus.

欧洲委员会第323/57号申诉，X诉丹麦，1957年12月19日不予受理的决定，欧洲人权委员会，文件和决定，1955-1956-1957，第247页。
European Commission Appl. No. 323/57, X v. Denmark, inadmissibility decision of 19 December 1957, European Commission of Human Rights, Documents and Decisions, 1955-1956-1957, p. 247.

在第1879/2009号案(A.W.P.诉丹麦)中，委员会回顾，个人只有结合《议定书》其他条款才能援引第二条。
In case No. 1879/2009(A.W.P. v. Denmark) the Committee recalled that article 2 may be invoked by individuals only in relation to other provisions of the Covenant.

提交人提出了委员会在P.S.诉丹麦4中的意见，支持非监护人父母可以代表他们的子女提出来文的主张。
The author cites the Committee' s Views in P.S. v. Denmark in support of the proposition that non-custodial parents may bring a communication on behalf of a their child.

(h)请当事方提供有关第37/2012号案件TammyNoergaard诉丹麦和第46/2012号案件MarionOliviaWeilharter和OliverBenjaminWeilharter诉丹麦的进一步信息；.
(h) To seek further information from the parties regarding cases Nos. 37/2012, Tammy Noergaard v. Denmark, and No. 46/2012, Marion Olivia Weilharter and Oliver Benjamin Weilharter v. Denmark;

委员会协商一致通过了不受理第29/2011号来文（M.S.诉西班牙和第44/2012号来文(M.A.A.诉丹麦)的决定。
The Committee adopted inadmissibility decisions on communications No. 29/2011(M.S. v. Spain) and No. 44/2012(M.A.A. v. Denmark), by consensus.

芬兰共同代理人，在国际法院关于大贝尔特海峡航行权案（芬兰诉丹麦）中负责组织芬兰的诉讼，1991年-1992年。
Co-Agent of Finland, responsible for the organization of the Finnish case at the International Court of Justice in the Case concerning Passage through the Great Belt(Finland v. Denmark), 1991-1992.

在2007年8月8日第七十一届会议期间，委员会还通过了关于第40/2007号来文(MuratEr诉丹麦)的《意见》(全文见附件五)。
Also on 8 August 2007, during its seventy-first session, the Committee adopted its Opinion on communication No. 40/2007(Murat Er v. Denmark)(see annex V for the full text).

同时还就第31/2003号来文(L.R.诉斯洛伐克)、第32/2003号来文(Sefic诉丹麦)和第33/2003号来文(Quereshi诉丹麦(之二))通过了意见。
It also adopted Opinions on communications No. 31/2003(L.R. v. Slovakia), No. 32/2003(Sefic v. Denmark) and No. 33/2003(Quereshi v. Denmark(No. 2)).

请愿人提及第16/1999号案件(KashifAhmad诉丹麦)，强调，尽管所涉事件是在2000年6月20日报告的，但在一个月之后即2000年7月21日才传达了警方的决定。
Referring to case No. 16/1999(Kashif Ahmad v. Denmark), the petitioners stress that while the incidents were reported on 20 June 2000, the decision of the police was transmitted a month later, on 21 July 2000.

大海峡通行权(芬兰诉丹麦).
Passage through the Great Belt(Finland v. Denmark).

关于第20/2000号来文(M.B.诉丹麦)的意见.
Opinion concerning communication No. 20/2000(M.B. v. Denmark) 128.

关于第23/2002号来文(K.R.C.诉丹麦)的意见.
Opinion concerning communication No. 23/2002(K.R.C. v. Denmark) 134.

为此，请愿人提及了Habassi诉丹麦的案例5。
In this regard, the petitioner refers to the case of Habassi v. Denmark.

第22/2002号来文(POEM和FASM诉丹麦案)涉及丹麦2个促进少数民族权利的组织。
Communication No. 22/2002(POEM and FASM v. Denmark) concerned two Danish organizations1 promoting the rights of ethnic minorities.

关于案情，缔约国注意到，来文提交人依赖于欧洲人权法院在Amrollahi诉丹麦一案中的判例。
Regarding the merits, the State party notes that the author relies on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Amrollahi v. Denmark.

第412/2010号申诉(A.A.R.诉丹麦)涉及一名伊拉克国民。2009年9月2日他被从丹麦遣返回伊拉克。
Communication No. 412/2010(A.A.R. v. Denmark) concerned a national of Iraq, who had been deported from Denmark to Iraq on 2 September 2009.

关于第32/2003(Sefic诉丹麦)案，请愿人是居住在丹麦的波斯尼亚公民，他要从一个当地保险公司买第三方责任保险。
In case No. 32/2003(Sefic v. Denmark), the petitioner, a Bosnian citizen residing in Denmark, sought to buy thirdparty liability insurance from a local insurance company.

在第1222/2003号(Byahuranga诉丹麦)案中，委员会裁定，如提交人驱逐至乌干达，将侵犯他依第7条享有的权利。
In case No. 1222/2003(Byahuranga v. Denmark), the Committee found that the author' s expulsion to Uganda would, if implemented, violate his rights under article 7.

第275条第1款规定，对这些罪行可以进行自诉，委员会在《Sadic诉丹麦案》中认为这是一个有效的补救措施。
Pursuant to section 275, paragraph 1,h these offences are subject to private prosecution, a remedy that was considered to be effective by the Committee in Sadic v. Denmark.

在第1222/2003号(Byahuranga诉丹麦)案中，提交人声称，将其驱回乌干达将构成对其享受家庭生活的权利的任意干涉。
In case No. 1222/2003(Byahuranga v. Denmark) the author claimed that his expulsion to Uganda would constitute an arbitrary interference with his right to family life.

第25/2002号来文(AhmadNajaatiSadic诉丹麦案)涉及一名伊拉克血统的丹麦公民，他声称他的雇主对他说了种族主义言论。
Communication No. 25/2002(Ahmad Najaati Sadic v. Denmark) concerned a Danish citizen of Iraqi origin who argued that his employer had made racist statements directed against him.

种族歧视委员会第4/1991号来文，L.K.诉丹麦，1993年3月16日的意见，A/48/18，附件四，第6.8段。
CERD Comm. No. 4/1991, L.K. v. the Netherlands, opinion of 16 March 1993, A/48/18, Annex IV, par. 6.8.