诉澳大利亚 英语是什么意思 - 英语翻译

• v. australia
• v australian
• v. austria

在 中文 中使用 诉澳大利亚 的示例及其翻译为 英语

Hannaford（以托伦斯河谷果园的名义进行贸易）诉澳大利亚Farmlink私人有限公司.
Hannaford(trading as Torrens Valley Orchards) v Australian Farmlink Pty Ltd.

人权委员会从A.诉澳大利亚的案子开始就是按非常类似的思路说理的。
The Human Rights Committee has reasoned along very similar lines beginning with the case of A. v. Australia.

Mrs.G.T.诉澳大利亚，第706/1996号来文，1997年12月4日。
Mrs. G.T. v. Australia, Communication No. 706/1996, 4 December 1997.

在第989/2001号案件(Kollar诉澳大利亚)中，委员会决定：.
In case No. 989/2001(Kollar v. Austria), the Committee decided.

欧洲人权委员会第913/60号申诉，X诉澳大利亚，1961年12月19日不予受理的裁决，Collection8，第43-45段。
European Commission Appl. No. 913/60, X v. Austria, inadmissibility decision of 19 December 1961, Collection 8, pp. 43-45.

Mr.C.诉澳大利亚，第900/1999号来文，2002年11月13日。
Mr. C. v. Australia, Communication No. 900/1999, 13 November 2002.

关于提交人援引委员会关于Winata诉澳大利亚案的判例，缔约国认为两者之间的案情无法比拟。
With regard to the author' s reference to the Committee' s jurisprudence in Winata v. Australia, the State party considers the situations incomparable.

这对父母援引并依据委员会对Winata诉澳大利亚案作出的《决定》为依据提出了申诉。
In that appeal, the Committee' s decision in Winata v. Australia was cited and relied upon by the parents.

关于提交人所述委员会关于Winata诉澳大利亚案的案例，缔约国认为两者之间的案情不可比。
With regard to the author' s reference to the Committee' s jurisprudence in Winata v. Australia, the State party considers the situations incomparable.

T．第692/1996号来文；A.R.J.诉澳大利亚（1997年7月28日第六十届会议通过的.
Communication No. 692/1996; A. R. J. v. Australia(Views adopted on 28 July 1997, sixtieth session).

临时总理塞尼兰加卡利星期四告诉澳大利亚电台说，斐济不需要像邻国新西兰或是澳大利亚那样的西方式民主。
He told Australian radio today(Thursday) Fiji does not need a Western-style democracy, like the one in neighboring New Zealand or Australia.

人权事务委员会第491/1992号来文，J.L.诉澳大利亚，1992年7月28日不予受理的决定，A/47/40,附件十，EE节，第4.2段。
HRC Comm. No. 491/1992, J.L. v. Australia, inadmissibility decision of 28 July 1992, A/47/40, Annex X, sect. EE, par. 4.2.

委员会忆及，在Winata诉澳大利亚案中，9提交人要求独立的难民复审法庭(复审庭)对其案件进行复审。
The Committee recalls that in the case of Winata v. Australia, the authors had sought a review of their case before the independent Refugee Review Tribunal(RRT).

提交人援引了委员会就Winata诉澳大利亚案提出的《意见》，并依据该案辩称，本来文揭露了违反《公约》第十七和二十三条的现象。
The authors invoke the Committee' s Views in Winata v. Australia, and argue on that basis that the present communication discloses violations of articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant.

提交人还称，眼下的案情符合委员会就Winata诉澳大利亚案所辩明的例外情况，因为案情所涉子女人数更多，而且父母家境贫困。
The authors also argue that the exceptional circumstances identified by the Committee in Winata v. Australia are satisfied here, as there are a greater number of children affected and the circumstances of the parents are poor.

在《A.诉澳大利亚和C.诉澳大利亚》(第900/1999号来文，CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999，第8.2段)的案件中，人权事务委员会明确指出：.
In the A. v. Australia and C. v. Australia cases(communication No. 900/1999, CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999, para. 8.2), the Human Rights Committee clarified that.

E而且，委员会不断地引证A.R.J.诉澳大利亚作为权威，f该案阐明将侵犯行为的必然和可预见后果作为验证。
Moreover, the Committee constantly cites as the authority A.R.J. v. Australia, which sets out a necessary and foreseeable consequence of a violation as the test.

委员会提到其关于第39/2006号来文(D.F.诉澳大利亚)的决定人权和机会平等委员会在该案中依据上述三条理由而驳回了申诉。
The Committee refers to its decision on communication N° 39/2006, D.F. v. Australia, where the complaint had been rejected by the HREOC on the three grounds evoked above.

委员会不能采取这种奇特的解决办法，由于它在第930/2000号来文，Winata和Li诉澳大利亚一案中采取的立场曾受到强烈批评。
This is a curious solution that the Committee cannot make use of, given the(strongly criticized) position that it adopted in communication No. 930/2000, Winata and Li v. Australia.

至于任意专断的概念而言，其意味着被质疑的措施必须与要实现的合法目标相称，并援引了Winata和Li诉澳大利亚一案第7.3段的内容作为支持。
As for the concept of arbitrariness, it implies that the impugned measure must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and quotes paragraph 7.3 of Winata and Li v. Australia in support.

判例958：《销售公约》[第1条；第9条；第35条；第39条；第44条；第50条]-澳大利亚：澳大利亚联邦法院[2008年]FCA1591，Hannaford（以托伦斯河谷果园的名义进行贸易）诉澳大利亚Farmlink私人有限公司（2008年10月24日）.
Case 958: CISG[1; 9; 35; 39; 44; 50]- Australia: Federal Court of Australia[2008] FCA 1591, Hannaford(trading as Torrens Valley Orchards) v Australian Farmlink Pty Ltd(24 October 2008).

Emli诉澳大利亚委员.
Elmi v Australia the Committee.

Volga案（俄罗斯联邦诉澳大利亚）。
Volga" case(Russian Federation v. Australia).

Gumana诉澳大利亚北方领土案".
Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia.

Volga案(俄罗斯联邦诉澳大利亚)，迅速释放.
The" Volga" Case(Russian Federation v. Australia), Prompt Release.

第1885/2009号来文，Horvath诉澳大利亚.
Communication No. 1885/2009, Horvath v. Australia.

Volga案(俄罗斯联邦诉澳大利亚)，迅速释放.
The" Volga" Case(Russian Federation v. Australia).

Elmi诉澳大利亚j中委员.
Elmi v Australia 10/ the Committee.

第1065/2002号来文：Mankarious诉澳大利亚.
Communication No. 1065/2002, Mankarious v. Australia.

第1012/2001号来文，Burgess诉澳大利亚.
Communication No. 1012/2001, Burgess v. Australia.