Barbados, case No. 502 1992, decision adopted on 31 March 1994, and Lamagna v. Australia, case No. 737 1997, decision adopted on 7 April 1999.

Iceland, case No. 674 95, decision adopted on 11 May 1996.

b Case No. 10 1997, decision adopted on 17 March 1999.

c Case No. 17 1999, decision adopted on 17 March 2000.

In each case, the decision would be subject to judicial review.

The Ombudsperson Office follows up the case until the final decision.

Following a separate decision on admissibility, the Committee sets the deadline for submissions on a case by case basis.

The Court may therefore strike down a decision and return the case to the judge for a new decision.

Following a separate decision on admissibility, the Committee shall fix the deadline for submissions on a case by case basis.

Finland, case No. 40 1978, decision adopted on 9 April 1981, J.T. v. Canada, case No. 104 1981, decision adopted on 6 April 1983, and Ominayak et al. v. Canada, op. cit.

Decision of 20 October 1922 (AD 1919 1922, Case No. 169) and decision of 23 May 1923 (AD 1925 1926, Case No. 331) (cited in Verzijl, supra note 6, at 382 83).

Mr. Rindal did not appeal the District Court's decision in his case.

v. Norway, case No. 942 2000, decision adopted on 25 October 2002.

The case is then forwarded to the President for a final decision.

The same argument is made to distinguish the current case from the Committee's decision in the case of B.J. v. Denmark.c

The Committee's decision in that case, given that the complainant had not been expelled, took into account the evidence made available to it up to the time the decision in that case was adopted.

v. Mauritius, case No. 35 1978, Views adopted on 9 April 1981, Disabled and Handicapped Persons in Italy v. Italy, case No. 163 1984, decision adopted on 10 April 1984, and J.H. v. Canada, case No. 187 1985, decision adopted on 12 April 1985.

The State party submits that there is no basis to distinguish the present case from the Committee's earlier decision in the Danish case.

Take, for example, the court's decision in the Cyprus v. Turkey case of 2001.

As with Al Qadi's case, the final decision on the annulment sought is pending.

No parallels can therefore be drawn with the Committee's decision in the Arana case.

The Supreme Court allegedly totally ignored the Constitutional Court's decision in the author's case.

Decision on the case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, 2000

The Netherlands, decision adopted on 10 August 1988 case No. 4 1991, L.K. v. The Netherlands, op. cit. case No. 10 1997, Habassi v.

It refers to the decision of the Committee in the case of POEM and FASM v.

The court also suspended the deportation order (decision of the court of first instance, case No.

In the instant case, the Committee, having examined the Supreme Court's decision, is of the opinion that the decision is not manifestly arbitrary or ill founded.

Verzijl, supra at 390 (citing decision of Netherlands District Court, AD 1947, Case No. 83 (5 February 1947) In re Utermohlen, AD 1947, Case No. 129 (Neth. Supr. Court, 2 April 1948) decision of High Court of Luxembourg of 30 January 1952).

Denmark, op cit. and case No. 16 1999, Ahmad v. Denmark, decision adopted on 13 March 2000.

In the present case, the Migration Board took its decision after interviewing the complainant for three hours.

No reference was made to any CISG provision or case law in this section of the decision.

The State party argues that the Supreme Court's decision of 4 May 1990, rejecting the authors' request for leave to appeal, is the final decision in the case.

In the complainant's case, the Migration Board took its decision after conducting two comprehensive interviews with the complainant.

360 1989, decision adopted on 14 July 1989, and A publication and a printing company v. Trinidad and Tobago, case No. 361 1989, decision adopted on 14 July 1989.

On 14 July 2004, BIA issued a briefing schedule and the case was fully briefed, but BIA has not issued a decision on Mr. Ali's case as of January 2005.

A case in point is enhancing the participation of developing countries in the decision making mechanisms of international forums.

12.36 With respect to the European Court's decision in Mamatkulov et al., counsel seeks to distinguish the instant case.

Some stressed the importance of having a concrete outcome in each case, in the form of a Council decision.

The decision to transfer cases to national jurisdictions after the confirmation of indictments is a judicial one and will be taken by the Trial Chambers on a case by case basis.

The Court may strike down the decision and return the case to the judge for a new decision if one of the grounds justifying its intervention is established (see paragraph 4.1).

The present case involved an authoritative decision by the highest Norwegian court to acquit a person accused of racist statements.

See, for example, Baroy v. The Philippines, case No. 1045 2002, decision adopted on 10 November 2003, and Benali v.

In no case may that be interpreted as an open possibility to renounce even partially the fundamental elements of that decision.

The recommendation by the Executive Board and the decision by the COP MOP on such a case shall be made public.

In the absence of such a decision the victim cannot take over the prosecution of the case on his own behalf.