▾

External sources (not reviewed)

No means of protest or control are possible [...] [...]

[...] [...] could choose to contest any results [...]

[...] [...] presiding officer of a meeting is likewise not [...]

Some members agreed with the Special Rapporteur that it was unnecessary to formulate an additional draft article on appeals against an expulsion decision, as draft article C1 set out the right to challenge an expulsion decision, which seemed sufficient.

It urged the authorities to ensure that such individuals be allowed to challenge the decision to apply a cessation of protection in their case, and expressed the view that they should also be allowed access to a process to assess their continued protection needs in order for non-refoulement obligations to be met.

[...] [...] blocking/challenge of names with national or geographical significance at the second level upon demand of governments.

Any representative to whose admission a Member has made objection shall be seated provisionally with the same rights as other representatives until the Credentials Committee has reported and the General Assembly has given its decision.

In other words, when an invalid reservation has been formulated, the reserving State should only be considered a party to the treaty without the benefit of the reservation if the reserving State has expressly indicated that upon objection, the reserving State would effectively withdraw the reservation and thus be a party without the benefit of the reservation.

It however notes that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication, and therefore considers that, for purposes of admissibility, domestic remedies have been exhausted.

[...] [...] it, arguing that the space launch was based [...] [...]

The Registrar shall forward a copy of the application to the parties, who shall have three days to file an y objections on a prescribed form.

It was also an interference in the internal affairs of India to disregard the fact that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of an independent State and that its population was participating democratically in the life of the country.

A representative may appeal against the ruling of the President.

The Executive Board of IFAD, by a resolution adopted at its ninety-ninth session, on 22 April 2010, acting within the framework of article XII of the annex to the Statute of the Tribunal and article XIII of the Agreement between the United Nations and IFAD, decided to challenge Judgement No. 2867 of the Tribunal and to refer the question of the validity of the judgement to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion.

The view was also expressed that considerable variations in national legislation and practice, as well as divergences among treaties, raised doubts as to whether customary rules governing appeals against an expulsion decision existed.

Lawsuits by petitioners to contest a refusal by national or local authorities to provide information are heard by the courts on an individual basis, depending on the case-file and in accordance with legislation on access to information and other laws regulating this matter.

However, he has no objection to the proposed insertion but would in such case suggest that it be rephrased to read: “and enhanced cooperation with the regional groupings that serve as policy platforms”.

[...] [...] performance of any services or delivery of any goods under this order.

[...] [...] him to lodge an objection with the Chairman of the Supreme Court.

[...] [...] this may be filed within four months of the date of publication of the notice; the communication informing the holder of the decision also indicates [...] [...]

[...] now, the wife has disputed the freezing of [...]

[...] [...] effectiveness of the proposed plebiscite would depend on freedom of expression, access to information and freedom to dissent.

On 16 May, the prosecution and the defence indicated in a joint filing to the Trial Chamber that certain facts have been agreed by both parties and that the defence will contest only three specific issues during the trial: first, whether the attack on the Haskanita base on 29 September 2007 was unlawful; secondly, whether the accused persons were aware of the factual circumstances that established the unlawful nature of the attack; and thirdly, whether the African Union Mission in Sudan was a peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Amongst others, this Court has the power to raise an objection as to the unconstitutionality of laws and ordinances, brought up before courts of law or commercial arbitration, including on grounds related to the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Judicial decisions that have become enforceable may be reviewed at the supervisory level, but only following an objection by the prosecutor or court president or their deputies to whom this right is accorded by Uzbek law.

In contrast to the majority view, Justice Kirby (in dissent on the High Court) and Justice Merkel (in dissent in the Full Federal Court) both considered that residual [...] [...]

[...] [...] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

If the State party concerned disputes the allegations of the author(s), in accordance with article 31, paragraph 2 (d), of the Convention, that all effective available domestic remedies have been exhausted, the State party shall give details of the effective remedies available to the alleged victim or victims in the particular circumstances of the case.

For these reasons, the Government of the Slovak Republic objects to the above mentioned reservations and declarations made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.