Заявка на участие в проекте «Перевод с русского на анг. Медицинские и юридические термины»

This argument is refuted by evidence submitted earlier with the Applicant's complaint. The Applicant stated in the complaint that on June 6, 2017, the day appointed by the judicial panel on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan for undergoing molecular-genetic expertise, the Applicant was on official sick leave. Properly executed sick leave certificate issued by the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Bashkortostan Polyclinic No. 46 Ufa (hereinafter - Polyclinic No. 46 Ufa), regarding the Applicant's sick leave from June 5 to June 13, 2017, was submitted to the materials of the civil case and attached to the Applicant's complaint. (Appendix No. 3 to the Written Objections). Also, to the materials of the civil case in the appellate instance of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Applicant attached an Extract from the outpatient card of the Applicant Fedorov V.M., issued by Polyclinic No. 46 Ufa, about the impossibility of leaving the territory of Ufa due to being on sick leave (Appendix No. 4 to the Written Objections). Thus, the argument about the violation of procedural obligation by the Applicant in this case is unsubstantiated. The authorities of the Russian Federation did not take into account and did not give a legal assessment to a number of legal documents confirming the close emotional connection of the Applicant with his son. None of the properly drawn up conclusions of the guardianship authorities, conclusions of forensic psychological examination, which examine the factual circumstances of the Applicant's life and the factual circumstances of his communication with the child, were considered and taken into account by the authorities of the Russian Federation. Thus, the Applicant's complaint is based on legal documents clearly establishing the fact of a close emotional attachment between the Applicant and his son: Conclusion of forensic psychological examination dated January 18, 2016, from the "Family" Psychological and Medical-Social Support Center (Appendix No. 11 to the Complaint); Survey report on the social and domestic living conditions of the Applicant by the Guardianship and Trusteeship Department of the Administration of the urban district of Sterlitamak dated October 27, 2015 (Appendix No. 12 to the Complaint)
Переводы
120 4 дня
This argument is refuted by evidence submitted earlier with the Applicant's complaint. The Applicant stated in the complaint that on June 6, 2017, the day appointed by the judicial panel on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan for undergoing molecular-genetic expertise, the Applicant was on official sick leave. Properly executed sick leave certificate issued by the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Republic of Bashkortostan Polyclinic No. 46 Ufa (hereinafter - Polyclinic No. 46 Ufa), regarding the Applicant's sick leave from June 5 to June 13, 2017, was submitted to the materials of the civil case and attached to the Applicant's complaint. (Appendix No. 3 to the Written Objections). Also, to the materials of the civil case in the appellate instance of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Applicant attached an Extract from the outpatient card of the Applicant Fedorov V.M., issued by Polyclinic No. 46 Ufa, about the impossibility of leaving the territory of Ufa due to being on sick leave (Appendix No. 4 to the Written Objections). Thus, the argument about the violation of procedural obligation by the Applicant in this case is unsubstantiated. The authorities of the Russian Federation did not take into account and did not give a legal assessment to a number of legal documents confirming the close emotional connection of the Applicant with his son. None of the properly drawn up conclusions of the guardianship authorities, conclusions of forensic psychological examination, which examine the factual circumstances of the Applicant's life and the factual circumstances of his communication with the child, were considered and taken into account by the authorities of the Russian Federation. Thus, the Applicant's complaint is based on legal documents clearly establishing the fact of a close emotional attachment between the Applicant and his son: Conclusion of forensic psychological examination dated January 18, 2016, from the "Family" Psychological and Medical-Social Support Center (Appendix No. 11 to the Complaint); Survey report on the social and domestic living conditions of the Applicant by the Guardianship and Trusteeship Department of the Administration of the urban district of Sterlitamak dated October 27, 2015 (Appendix No. 12 to the Complaint)