Examples of using Author subsequently in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The author subsequently appealed against the decision.
On an unspecified date, one Zagolko approached this agency for services and the author subsequently visited Zagolko and signed a contract with him with the letterhead of another agency.
The author subsequently filed a complaint with the Hussein-Dey court against the State party's agents.
The Committee notes that the Commission declared the author's complaint inadmissible on 2 November 2011 and that the author subsequently submitted his communication to the Committee on 25 October 2012.
The author subsequently informed the Committee that both of his brothers were later released, alive.
The Committee notes the State party's observations regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and that the author subsequently submitted a copy of the Constitutional Court's decision in the amparo proceedings.
The author subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Hungary, on the following grounds.
After submitting his initial communication on 26 April 1996, the author discharged the London-based law firm which had initially agreed to represent him;another London-based law firm agreed to take over his representation, but the author subsequently also discharged that firm.
The author subsequently also claims to be victim of a violation of article 12 of the Covenant see paragraph 5.1 below.
Up to the time of his dismissal, many complaints were filed against him of which the State party refers to the following: abuse of power to build onland belonging to him, contrary to regulations; institution of criminal proceedings before his own court against an individual with whom the author had personal differences and which the author subsequently.
The author subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court(Hoge Raad), which dismissed his appeal on 11 December 1991.
Due to the fact that the author subsequently escaped from prison and fled abroad, he is prevented from returning to the State party to pursue any local remedies.
The author subsequently applied to the Supreme Court for a release ex gratia. This application was refused on 25 March 2009.
The author subsequently appealed to the Central Board of Appeal, which, by judgement of 5 July 1991, confirmed the Board of Appeal's decision.
The author subsequently breached the recognizance on three occasions for which he was arrested on 12 June, and 2 December 2002 and subsequently released.
The author subsequently abandoned his appeal and filed for compensation for unlawful detention, but he never received a reply from the authorities.
The author subsequently lodged an application before an Administrative Court of the Judicial Circuit of Santiago de Cali, which was dismissed in the first instance.
The author subsequently submitted a copy of a judgement dated 15 July 1996 which he claimed had been drawn up by the supreme military tribunal.
The author subsequently appealed the Court of Appeal's judgement in cassation. On 19 January 1991, the Supreme Court(Hoge Raad) of the Netherlands rejected his appeal.
The author subsequently submitted an application for judicial review of this decision, which was still pending at the time of the State party's further information.
The author subsequently filed a partial motion for reconsideration of the 9 May 2002 judgement, reiterating his claim of minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance.
The author subsequently petitioned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. On 17 May 1990, the Judicial Committee refused leave to appeal.
The author subsequently received another two summonses from the Larbâa police station(9 January 2000 and 16 June 2001), one from the Larbâa gendarmerie(5 December 2005) and another from the gendarmerie at El Biar 21 December 2005.
The author subsequently requested a review of this decision and requested the President of the Court in The Hague to grant provisional measures to defer his expulsion until a decision on his request for review had been taken.
The author subsequently filed an application for review of the Minister's decision with the Federal Court. On 8 June 1990, the issues in the case were referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, which rendered judgement on 26 September 1991.
The author subsequently consulted nine lawyers from the Conseil d'État and the Court of Cassation who refused to register an appeal for him, telling him first to comply with the financial order handed down by the Toulouse court of appeal.
The author subsequently submitted a complaint to the Federal Assembly's Office, which referred his complaint to the General Prosecutor's Office on 20 October 1988. On 8 December 1988, the Office informed him that the attempted execution of the Court's decision had been lawful.
The author subsequently brought the matter to the attention of the officer-in-charge of the Kirulapone police station. On 26 October 1998, under the orders of the officer-in-charge, the police officer in question visited the author in his chambers at the District Court and apologized.
The author subsequently sought leave to appeal from the High Court of Australia arguing that he had suffered a miscarriage of justice because he did not sufficiently understand the trial in which he was convicted of murder. On 24 November 2000, the High Court dismissed the application.
The author subsequently appealed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who, under the Migration Act, has the personal, non-compellable and non-reviewable power to intervene and set aside decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal where it is in the“public interest” to do so.
