Examples of using Author complained in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In March 1998, the author complained to the Supreme Court under the supervisory review proceedings.
On that occasion, the author was represented by the attorney's assistant,one Mr. S. It is submitted that the author complained to Mr. S. about the foreman of the jury, whom he believed to be prejudiced against him.
In November 1992, the author complained to the Public Service Commission of Canada in respect of his case.
Since the author did not receive any response by that date, he resubmitted his complaint to the Vice Chairman of the Supreme Court on 25 September 2006, and on 29 September 2006.On 15 September 2006, the author complained of ill-treatment to the Staropromyslovsk District Court of Grozny.
The author complained before the investigator and the court that the lawyer was not interested in defending his interests.
At the first hearing in March 2002, the author complained of the torture and ill-treatment that he had suffered.
The author complained against the Ministerial refusal of 30 July 1997 to the Court of the Moscow District in Minsk, but his complaint was rejected on 18 August 1997.
Some of his lands were confiscated in October 1987. The author complained to the authorities and directly to President Obiang, to no avail.
The author complained to the Supreme Court and, on 13 May 2008, a Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Court rejected his request to have the case examined under the supervisory review proceedings.
It was clearly apparent from the material transmitted to the State party that the author complained about issues related to his conditions of detention and his right to a fair trial.
In his appeals the author complained that the prosecution had the obligation to inquire into the reasons for his escape, but that it failed to do this.
The Human Rights Committee considered the case of Delroy Prince v. Jamaica(comm. No. 269/1987), wherein the author complained that witnesses on his behalf had been subjected to intimidation and therefore had failed to testify.
Later that day, the author complained to the Inspector of Prisons, who gave the author permission to grow a beard again.
The author complained that he was the victim of discrimination by the Ontario Government because public funds were provided for Roman Catholic schools but not for schools of the author's religion.
After the incident of 19 November 1999, the author complained to her immediate superior, Mr. S., about the actions of Mr. G., stating that she intended to file a complaint against him.
The author complained to the CEC about a number of electoral irregularities related to the refusal to accept the lists of signatures from one person and to certify their receipt by the District Electoral Commissions upon request of two other individuals, as well as about the intimidation of two of the initiative group's members at their work place.
It acknowledges that the author complained of the conditions of her detention to the courts and other State organs.
On 24 January 2003, the author complained to the Constitutional Court about the ruling of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Gomel of 23 July 2002 that was handed down on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of article 27 of the Belarus Constitution.
In case No. 1542/2007(Aboushanif v. Norway), the author complained that the Court of Appeal did not provide any argument for its denial of leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence.
On an unspecified date, the author complained to the Ministry of Justice about R. 's acts. On 28 January 2000, the Ministry of Justice informed her that an internal inquiry was in process, and the author's allegations were confirmed.
During the preliminary hearing of 25 October 2002, the author complained that he had not received a copy of the indictment and the judge was ready to provide the respective copy, but he again refused to receive it.
The State party further submits that the author complained to the European Court of Human Rights regarding violations of his rights under articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that his application was rejected with the following motivation.
By letter of 1 March 1995 addressed to the High Administrative Court, the author complained that the Court had failed to give the reasons and the legal provisions on which its decision to dismiss his complaint was based. This motion was rejected by the Court on 14 March 1995.
On 13 November 2007, the author complained to the Supreme Court against the Supreme Court ruling of 9 November 2007. On 27 December 2007, the Cassation College of the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 9 November 2007. On 5 February 2008, the author requested the Presidium of the Supreme Court to initiate a supervisory review of the ruling of 9 November 2007. On 24 March 2008, his request was rejected.
On 30 October 1992, the author complained to the Federal Court of Appeal for an extension of the time limit for applying for leave to appeal.
On 17 December 2002, the author complained about his arrest and remand in custody to the Central District Court of Minsk city, claiming, inter alia, that under article 9 of the Covenant, no one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention; and that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge should be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.
In a letter dated 21 March 1997, the author complained to his counsel about the prison conditions at St. Catherine's District Prison, and particularly about an incident which occurred on 5 March 1997.
On 8 October 2007, the author complained to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, requesting to have assessed whether articles 3, 4, 7 and 37 of the federal law on the election of deputies of the State Duma are compatible with the provisions of articles 3, 13, 19 and 30 of the Constitution.
The Committee recalls that, in the present case, the author complained of a series of hostile reactions to the Plymouth Brethren following the publication of the 2006 parliamentary report a campaign of hostility in the media, for example.
On 28 February 2006, the author complained to the Prosecutor's Office, reiterating his claims of 6 and 13 June 2005. On 26 May 2006, the same prosecutor warned him and his wife that during the pretrial investigation they had submitted more than 100 repetitive claims to different institutions.