Clarification and modification of solicitation documents and withdrawal of the solicitation

Comments by the petitioners

Provision of solicitation documents

Consideration of admissibility

The facts as presented by the petitioner

The facts as presented

Petitioner's comments on State party's submission

The petitioners demanded that the Council provide them with a better financial support than men's team, implementing special measures concerning women' teams.

The petition called for the monarchy to work within constitutionally prescribed limits, and for an independent judiciary.

State party's submission on the admissibility and merits

State party's submissions on the admissibility and merits of the petition

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

In the case of those mechanisms, which provide for a right of individual petition, applicants must demonstrate that they have exhausted domestic remedies.

The petitioner maintains his arguments on the merits.

The political logic behind such a plea is straightforward.

2.8 The petitioner argues that he has exhausted domestic remedies.

On 14 January 2003, this motion was similarly dismissed.

At this stage he raised his voice and insisted on his right to pursue the application.

6.7 On 23 March 2004, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, arguing, inter alia, that the jurisprudence is established with regard to the legal issue raised in the petition.

On 5 August 2002, the council considered the petition and unanimously voted, having considered the factual circumstances , to cancel the earlier resolution by means of a second resolution which included an explicit reference to the petition.c

In any event, the petitioners argue that the ethnicity of the persons signing the petition is irrelevant, as its content, purpose and effect are discriminatory.

As a result, DRC filed the petitioner's first petition before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which found that there had been no violation with respect to the State party's action concerning Ms. Andersen.f It emphasized that proceedings had been lodged with respect to those directly responsible for the statements in question at the party conference.

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

According to the complainant, she had subsequently been informed by the lawyer that the petition had been lodged.

After the president had granted the request, the author left the court.

6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a petition, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination must, in accordance with rule 91 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Convention.

6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a petition, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination must, in accordance with rule 91 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Convention.

The case was still pending as the Court ordered the Attorney General's office to respond to the petition.14

It is noted that a number of Roma also signed the petition in question.

However, the complainant was not very hopeful with regard to the outcome of such a petition.

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

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

a The State party provides, with its submissions on the merits of the petition, the following full text of the resolution

c The State party provides, with its submissions on the merits of the petition, the following full text of the resolution

5.2 As to the Danish Marketing Practices Act, the petitioner submits that this Act has nothing to do with racial discrimination and a decision in relation to this Act is not a remedy against such a violation of the petitioner's rights.

It stated that as neither the petition nor the second resolution constituted legal acts, they were permissible under domestic law.

Concerning criminal prosecutions in the context of the petition on the basis of spreading racial hatred, the State party argues that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any actions of its public authorities were unlawful, or that the petition or its contents were unlawful.

The petition was withdrawn by the petitioner, after the ministry entered an affidavit, committing to take minutes of the nominations committee's hearings and instruct the committee members to act according to the rules of affirmative action, and an internal procedure in that fashion was issued in the ministry.

The campaign could serve as a strong model for future efforts.

Presentation of such a petition would have obliged the municipality to accept the petition for review and to examine the factual situation.

By contrast, none of the petitioners in this case was present when the remarks were made during the commemorative march.

After discussing the petition of 30 July 2002 and after determining the facts, the Town Council of Dobšiná, through the Resolution of the Town Council is in compliance with the law, on the basis of the citizens' petition

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?

If that Government is not sympathetic, the petition might not be presented to the Committee, regardless of the merits.

4.1 On 18 December 2004, the State party provided comments on the admissibility and merits.