Examples of using Party objects in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The State party objects to counsel's statement that it would be futile to submit documents to the Swedish authorities.
In its observations dated 21 November 2003, the State party objects to the admissibility of the claim and addresses the merits of the case.
The State party objects to admissibility on the grounds that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of a violation.
Such statements may be admitted as a matter of course, even if they go to prove the acts or conduct of the accused,unless the other party objects because the witness is available for cross-examination.
The State party objects to the admissibility of the communications on the ground that the authors have failed to exhaust available domestic remedies.
Support was expressed in favour of option 1 without the words"[, unless a disputing party objects thereto]", as that option was seen to best further the interests of transparency.
The State party objects to these new allegations as they"are separate from the complainant's original submission and can only serve to delay consideration of the original communication by the Human Rights Committee.
Given the long lapse of time and the absence of evidence as to procedural fault,the State party objects to what it describes as an arbitrary challenge of the domestic courts' decision.
Finally, the State party objects to the information provided by the author in the submission of 14 April 2011, and claims that the facts and circumstances of the case quoted are different from and irrelevant to the present case.
If the injured party is a Yugoslav citizen, cession shall not be allowed if the injured party objects, unless it has been granted as a security for exercising of his/her property claim.
The State party objects to admissibility on the grounds that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of a violation of article 3, but the Committee is of the view that the author has provided sufficient information in substantiation of his claim to consider his complaint on the merits.
If the Executive Council recommends to all States Parties that the proposal be adopted,it shall be considered approved if no State Party objects to it within 90 days after receipt of the recommendation.
The Committee notes that the State party objects to the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of failure to exhaust civil domestic remedies.
After discussion, the Working Group agreed to consider at a future session option 1 without the words"[, unless a disputing party objects thereto]" and the compromise proposal referred to above in paragraph 100.
The State party objects to the complainant's claims that his temporary exclusion from association constituted"torture" according to article 1(in conjunction with article 2) or, alternatively,"cruel, in-human or degrading treatment or punishment" according to article 16.
If, within a period of 12 months from the date of the circulation of the communication, a State Party objects to the proposed amendment or to the proposal for its adoption by the simplified procedure, the amendment shall be considered rejected.
The State party objects to admissibility on the grounds that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of a violation of article 3, but the Committee is of the view that the complainant has provided sufficient information in substantiation of his claim to consider his complaint on the merits.
However, the application of thisprocedure will require consensus: according to paragraph 2 of article 313, if any State Party objects to the proposed amendment within 12 months of its circulation, the amendment shall be considered rejected.
The Committee notes that the State party objects to the admissibility of the alleged violation of article 9 of the Covenant for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, arguing that any alleged irregularity in his arrest should have been brought up prior to the author's arraignment.
According to guidelines 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, a"late reservation"(that is, a reservation formulated after the expression of consent to be bound by that treaty)shall in principle be possible on the condition that no other contracting party objects to it within a period of 12 months.
The State party objects to the complainant's argument that a constitutional complaint has no suspensive effect, arguing that such effect can be substituted by means of an urgent application for interim relief, under section 32 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.
Proposed guideline 3.3.3 provides that a reservation that is impermissible(prohibited by the treaty or incompatible with its object and purpose),"shall be deemed permissible" if no party objects to it after having been expressly informed of its invalidity by the depositary at the request of a party. .
The Committee observes that the State party objects to the admissibility of the author's allegation under article 7 on the grounds that he failed to appeal in court the ruling of 25 December 2008, in which the authorities refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the respective bailiffs for lack of corpus delicti.
It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, that a State party make available to the Committee all the information at its disposal;this is so even where the State party objects to the admissibility of the communication and requests the Committee to review its admissibility decision, as requests for a review of admissibility are examined by the Committee in the context of the consideration of the merits of a case, pursuant to rule 93, paragraph 4, of the Committee's rules of procedure.
The State party objects that neither the authors' son nor his co-defendants or lawyers ever requested the court to carry out a medical examination on this issue, whereas"internal safeguard procedures" of the law-enforcement agencies had not revealed any misconduct during the pretrial detention.
In respect of the alleged violation of article 27 in conjunction with article 2 of the Covenant,the State party objects to the admissibility on the grounds that the authors are not victims in the terms of article 1 of the Optional Protocol, and that the authors have failed to exhaust domestic remedies under article 5, paragraph 2(b) of the Optional Protocol.
This means they are not invalid a priori but if one of the parties objects to their validity on grounds prescribed by law they may be declared invalid by the court.
In most of the States, the party objecting had to be heard by the court within a defined time period(varying, depending on the States, between 8 to 45 days);
The State party objected against admissibility on the ground that the same matter had been examined by the European Commission.
If one of the parties objects to Mediation or if the Mediation is terminated, the dispute shall be finally resolved… IMPORTANT.