Hearing of petitioner

Nor repulse the petitioner ( unheard )

Nor repulse the petitioner ( unheard )

Alleged victim(s) The petitioner

For the petitioner and the deprived

The facts as presented by the petitioner

The petitioner maintains his arguments on the merits.

And as for the petitioner , do not repel him .

And as for the petitioner , do not repel him .

2.8 The petitioner argues that he has exhausted domestic remedies.

Thus, the Committee considers that the petitioner has exhausted domestic remedies.

The petitioner also stated that the necessary intent of the States to create an international act was not present in this case. These two statements by the petitioner reflect two important issues.

5.1 On 27 February 2004, the petitioner responded to the State party's submission.

And from their properties was given the right of the needy petitioner and the deprived .

And from their properties was given the right of the needy petitioner and the deprived .

The petitioner contends that the following statements were made at the meeting from the podium b

In the meantime, the petitioner contacted the company again and was rejected on the same grounds.

The Committee shall also inform, through the Secretary General, the petitioner of the communication of its decision.

It argues that the petitioner has failed to exhaust domestic remedies available in criminal proceedings in three respects.

Denmark (No. 2) (No. 33 2003), the petitioner brought a follow up petition to a petition earlier declared admissible.

3.3 The petitioner highlights the following questions and issues, which in his view the Danish authorities failed to consider in examining whether the language requirement constituted racial discrimination. Firstly, to what extent were the petitioner and Fair Insurance A S able to communicate in the present case?

3.1 The petitioner alleges two counts of violation of articles 2, subparagraph 1 (d), 4 and 6 of the Convention.

The petitioner requested the Special Committee to assist Puerto Rico in becoming the fifty first state of the United States.

Denmark), the petitioner, a Bosnian citizen residing in Denmark, sought to buy third party liability insurance from a local insurance company.

2.2 In late July 2002, the petitioner contacted DRC, which requested confirmation of the petitioner's allegations from Fair Insurance A S.

The Registrar is directed to remove the Petitioner from Court and commit him to prison on the sentence that is imposed .

6.3 Turning to the State party's argument that the petitioner should have initiated a private prosecution under the general provisions of section 267 of the Criminal Code, the Committee recalls that, in its Opinion in Sadic,i it indeed required the petitioner in that case to pursue such a course.

The petitioner is Mr. Emir Sefic, a Bosnian citizen currently residing in Denmark, where he holds a temporary residency and work permit.

The petitioner, a Member of Parliament, observed a party political broadcast on public television in which a series of party members made offensive remarks.

The same objective could not be achieved by instituting a civil action, which would result only in compensation for damages awarded to the petitioner.

5.1 By letter of 2 August 2004, the petitioner disputes the State party's submissions on admissibility and reiterates his earlier submissions on the merits.

On admissibility, it submits that, although the petitioner has exhausted available remedies under criminal law, there remain two civil actions which he has not pursued.

The petitioner could have claimed damages under general rules of Danish law, both for the financial loss allegedly suffered by him and for non pecuniary loss.

The Committee stated in the same decision that mere doubts about the effectiveness of available civil remedies do not absolve a petitioner from pursuing them .l

Admissible communications shall be considered by the Committee in the light of all information made available to it by the petitioner and the State party concerned.

The existing procedures contain a provision that the treaty body shall forward its views and recommendations, if any, to the State party concerned and to the petitioner.

So far only one petition has been submitted to the Chancellor or Justice where the petitioner complained that the requirements for applying for Estonian citizenship were discriminating.

It also follows that the petitioner was not deprived of the right to an effective remedy for an act of racial discrimination in respect of Mr. Andreasen's statement.

The Court thus stipulated that the Fund must provide women with the same rights as men within the retirement arrangements and that the Fund discriminated against the petitioner.

The operative part of the Order stated as follows The petitioner was informed that he cannot abuse the process of Court and keep filing applications without any basis.

The petitioner is Kamal Quereshi, a Danish national born 29 July 1970 and a current member of the State party's Parliament (Folketinget) for the Socialist Peoples Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti).

2.1 On 22 July 2002, the petitioner contacted Fair Insurance A S to purchase insurance covering loss of and damage to his car, as well as third party liability insurance.

Firstly, the petitioner only appealed the DPP decision of 14 August 2003 related to Mr. Andreasen, and did not appeal any of the DPP decisions on the other individuals concerned.

An investigation could have uncovered whether Fair Insurance A S was able to communicate on a sufficient basis the demands, requirements and rights connected to the statutory insurance to the petitioner.

It is therefore considered irrelevant to initiate an investigation of the extent to which the petitioner and Fair Insurance A S were able to communicate in a language other than Danish.