Jurisprudence
CERD - Denmark
List of all final views
|
Case Name |
Comm Number |
Date |
Articles |
Outcome |
| Habassi v. Denmark |
10/1997 |
17 March 1999 |
2(1d), 6 |
Violation |
| Ahmad v. Denmark |
16/1999 |
13 March 2000 |
2(1d), 6 |
Violation |
| B.J. v. Denmark |
17/1999 |
17 March 2000 |
6 |
No Violation |
| M.B. v. Denmark |
20/2000 |
13 March 2002 |
2 (1d) |
No Violation |
| Kamal Quereshi v. Denmark |
27/2002 |
19 August 2003 |
4(b), 6 |
No Violation |
| Sefic v. Denmark |
32/2003 |
07 March 2005 |
2(1d), 5, 6 |
No Violation |
| Quereshi v. Denmark |
33/2003 |
09 March 2005 |
2(1d), 4, 6 |
No Violation |
| Gelle v. Denmark |
34/2004 |
06 March 2006 |
2(1d), 4, 6 |
Violation |
| Er v. Denmark |
40/2007 |
08 August 2007 |
2(1d), 5(ev), 6 |
Violation |
| Adan v. Denmark |
43/2008 |
13 August 2010 |
2(1d), 4, 6 |
Violation |
| Dawas and Shava v. Denmark |
46/2009 |
06 March 2012 |
2 (1d), 6 |
Violation |
Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.
CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW complaint mechanism is not yet in force.
Included in this section are:
- requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
- decisions to deal jointly with cases
- admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
- final views.
Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".
|
