text:
The Complainant is Lacoste Alligator S.A of Geneva, Switzerland represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. of New York, United States of America.
The Respondent is bocai of Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.
The disputed domain name <lacosteshopsale.com> is registered with Xiamen eName Network Technology Corporation Limited dba eName Corp.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 24, 2010. On February 25, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Xiamen eName Network Technology Corporation Limited dba eName Corp. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 26, 2010, Xiamen eName Network Technology Corporation Limited dba eName Corp. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On February 26, 2010 the Complainant requested that English be the language of proceedings. The Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the due date.
In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 26, 2010. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
The Complainant, Lacoste Alligator S.A. (hereinafter: the “Complainant”), is a Swiss design and manufacturer of clothing and fashion accessories.
The Complainant was founded in 1933 by French Tennis player Rene Lacoste and Andre Gillier, president of a knitwear manufacturer. Since then the LACOSTE mark was continuously used in relation with the design and manufacture of the Complainant's clothing and accessories.
The Complainant expended significant resources throughout the years in promotion and advertisement worldwide. The Complainant efforts were fertile. For example, in 2001, an international survey performed in ten countries by Cofemca-Sociovision showed that 66% of respondents recognized the LACOSTE brand. As a result of extensive use and publicity, the LACOSTE trademark become widely-know and is solely associated with the Complainant.
The Complainant and its affiliated companies are the owners of multiple trademark registrations for the mark LACOSTE around the world. For example: United States trademark registration No. 0879171 – LACOSTE, with the registration date of October 21, 1969; United States trademark registration No. 1035615 – LACOSTE, with the registration date of March 16, 1967; United States trademark registration No. 1187445 – LACOSTE, with the registration date of January 26, 1982; United States trademark registration No. 1218448 – LACOSTE, with the registration date of November 30, 1982; Community trademark registration No. 002979524 – LACOSTE, with the filing date of December 17, 2002; Community trademark registration No. 004104626 – LACOSTE logo, with the filing date of November 2, 2004; and others.
The Complainant has also developed a formidable presence on the Internet and is the owner of the following domain names, which contain the names “lacoste”: <www.lacoste.com>, <www.lacoste.com/uk>, <www.lacoste.com/nl>, www.lacoste.com.de>, <www.lacoste.com/france>, <www.lacoste.com/es> and others. The Complainant is using these domain names in connection with its activities.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <lacosteshopsale.com> on November 24, 2009.
The disputed domain name resolves to an on-line marketplace, offering various goods for sale, including clothing and accessories which appear to carry the LACOSTE mark.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the LACOSTE trademark, owned by the Complainant, seeing that it incorporates the trademark as a whole.
The Complainant further argues that it has exclusive rights to the LACOSTE trademark and that this trademark is widely recognized with the Complainant and, and with its operation. Furthermore, the Complainant argues that it did not have a relationship with the Respondent nor has it licensed or permitted the Respondent to use the LACOSTE mark.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial use of the LACOSTE mark. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods.
The Complainant further argues that the Responded is using the website for the sale of counterfeit goods, which carry the LACOSTE mark. The Complainant argues that this is evidence of the Respondent's bad faith.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The LACOSTE trademark is registered in multiple territories around the world. For example: United States trademark registration No. 0879171 – LACOSTE, with the registration date of October 21, 1969; United States trademark registration No. 1035615 – LACOSTE, with the registration date of March 16, 1967; United States trademark registration No. 1187445 – LACOSTE, with the registration date of January 26, 1982; United States trademark registration No. 1218448 – LACOSTE, with the registration date of November 30, 1982; Community trademark registration No. 002979524 – LACOSTE, with the filing date of December 17, 2002; Community trademark registration No. 004104626 – LACOSTE logo, with the filing date of November 2, 2004; and others.
The disputed domain name <lacosteshopsale.com> differs from the registered LACOSTE trademark by the additional words “shop” and “sale”, and the gTLD “.com”.
The dominant element in the disputed domain name is the Complainant's LACOSTE trademark, which is incorporated in its entirety. The words “shop” and "sale" do not serve sufficiently to distinguish or differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant's LACOSTE trademark, especially as they represent services regularly rendered by the Complainant.
Previous UDRP panels have ruled that the mere addition of a non significant element does not sufficiently differentiate the domain name from the registered trademark: “[t]he incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark” (Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO Case No. D2001-0505). Also, “the trademark RED BULL is clearly the most prominent element in this combination, and that may cause the public to think that the domain name <redbull-jp.net> is somehow connected with the owner of RED BULL trademark” (Red Bull GmbH v. PREGIO Co., Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2006-0909).
Further, previous UDRP panels have asserted that “the mere addition of a descriptive term to an identical trademark has been repeatedly held by previous panels as not sufficient to avoid confusion between the domain name and the trademark” (Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub, WIPO Case No. D2003-0709).
The Panel finds the Complainant has established such a prima facie case inter alia due to the fact that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the LACOSTE trademark, or a variation thereof. The Respondent has not submitted a Response and has not provided any evidence to show it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name sufficient to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case.
The Complainant submitted evidence, which shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant registered its trademarks. According to the evidence filed by the Complainant and the trademark search preformed by the Panel, the Complainant, along its affiliated companies, own registrations for the LACOSTE trademark since the year 1969. It is suggestive of the Respondent's bad faith in these particular circumstances that the trademarks, owned by the Complainant, were registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name (Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace, WIPO Case No. D2009-0735).
The disputed domain name lead Internet users to a website, which promotes the sale of clothing and accessories under the LACOSTE mark. The Respondent's use of the name “lacoste” to promote similar or counterfeit goods to the good being sold by the Complainant clearly evidences that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and of the use the Complainant is making in the mark LACOSTE and subsequent intent to trade off the value of these. The Respondent's actions therefore constitute bad faith. See Herbalife International, Inc. v. Surinder S. Farmaha, WIPO Case No. D2005-0765, stating that “[t]he registration of a domain name with the knowledge of the complainant's trademark registration amounts to bad faith”. Indeed, the use the Respondent made in the disputed domain name for quasi identical goods to the ones the Complainant manufacture and markets (as well as Complainant's counterfeit's good) constitutes bad faith on behalf of the Respondent (See Schur International A/S v. Jorge Massa, WIPO Case No. D2009-0450).
In light of the Complainant's distinctive registered trademark and the Respondent's use of the domain name, the Panel finds that the registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar name to the Complainant's mark shows the Respondent intent to operate a website offering similar goods and by doing so, creating likelihood that Internet users would be confused and identify the Respondent as either associate affiliated by the Complainant.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <lacosteshopsale.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.


On 13 March 2019, Azimjan Askarov was transferred from detention center № 1 in Bishkek, the capital, to Correctional Facility № 19 in Dzhangi Jer, Kyrgyzstan. This facility houses convicts who have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
On 24 January 2017, the Chui regional court upheld the life sentence for human rights defender Azimjan Askarov. The decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court. At the end of the court hearing, Azimjan Askarov said he will start a hunger strike.
On 4 October 2016, the trial of imprisoned human rights defender Azimjan Askarov started at the Chui regional court. At a previous hearing, on 12 July 2016, the Supreme Court in Bishkek had decided to send his case to the regional court for additional review. The human rights defender, who has been sentenced to life in prison in 2010, will remain in detention pending his new trial.
On 21 April 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee found that the Kyrgyz authorities had arbitrarily detained, tortured, held in “inhumane” conditions, and “prevented [Askarov] from adequately preparing his trial defence.” In a statement, the UN experts called on Kyrgyzstan to immediately release him and quash his life sentence.
Azimjan Askarov is a prominent human rights defender in Kyrgyzstan and founder of the human rights organization Vozdukh (Air). He has worked to investigate and report cases of police abuse and poor prison conditions, and as a result was targeted by the authorities. On 15 September 2010, Azimjan Askarov was sentenced to life imprisonment on trumped up charges of organising mass riots and involvement in the killing of a policeman. He was arrested on 16 June 2010 following violent clashes the same month between ethnic Kyrgyzs and Uzbeks in south Kyrgyzstan, in which more than 400 people were killed. Azimjan Askarov was tortured in pre-trial detention facilities. However, the General Prosecutor's Office refused to investigate the allegations of torture and various courts, including the Supreme Court, upheld the General Prosecutor's refusal to investigate.
On 13 March 2019, Azimjan Askarov was transferred from detention center № 1 in Bishkek, the capital, to Correctional Facility № 19 in Dzhangi Jer, Kyrgyzstan. This facility houses convicts who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. The human rights defender was not informed about the transfer, nor was his family.
It is believed that the transfer may indicate that the human rights defender’s life sentence has formally started. Azimjan Askarov has been held in detention since 15 June 2010, during which time he has been subjected to ill-treatment.
On 24 January 2017, the Chui regional court upheld the life sentence for human rights defender Azimjan Askarov. The decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court. At the end of the court hearing, Azimjan Askarov declared he will start a hunger strike.
On 10 January 2017, the Chui regional court postponed the verdict in the case of human rights defender Azimjan Askarov until 17 January.
At the hearing, Askarov's lawyer lodged two requests: 1) to release the human rights defender, in accordance with the statement published by the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) in April 2016; 2) to open a new and fair investigation into his case. The judge dismissed both requests.
The new trial against Askarov has been marred with irregularities. Many important witnesses were not in court and the evidence provided by the witnesses who attended the hearing is vague and confused. A Front Line Defenders representative, who went to observe the trail, was initially denied entrance, but was eventually allowed to enter in the room. The next hearings are scheduled for 11, 18 and 25 October.
In September 2010, Askarov was sentenced to life imprisonment on trumped up charges of organising mass riots, instigating ethnic hatred and being involved in the murder of a policeman. He was arrested on 16 June 2010, following violent clashes between ethnic Kyrgyzs and Uzbeks in south Kyrgyzstan, in which more than 400 people were killed.
According to the UNHRC statement, Askarov was arbitrarily detained, held in inhumane conditions, tortured, mistreated, and unable to get proper treatment for serious medical conditions. Authorities also failed to carry out an immediate, effective and impartial investigation into Askarov’s allegations of torture.
At an appeals hearing on 12 July 2016, the Supreme Court in Bishkek decided to send the case of human rights defender Azimjan Askarov to the Chui regional court of appeal for new hearing.
Azimjan Askarov was sentenced to life in prison in 2010. 21 April 2016, the UN Human Rights Committee found that the Kyrgyz authorities had arbitrarily detained, tortured, held in “inhumane” conditions, and “prevented [Askarov] from adequately preparing his trial defence.” In a statement, the UN experts called on Kyrgyzstan to immediately release him and quash his life sentence.
For two days in Bishkek, Askarov has been prevented from attending his trial. On the second day, international observers reported that families of the victims of the policemen killed in 2010 verbally and physically attacked the defense team with no intervention from the police present.
The appeals hearing for human rights defender Azimjan Askarov began Monday morning, 11 July 2016, at the Supreme Court in Bishkek. Numerous international organisations, including Front Line Defenders, attended to observe the trial, as well as representatives from the United States and German embassies in Bishkek. The human rights defender was not permitted to be present in the court room.
At the Supreme Court on 11 July, Askarov's lawyers asked on numerous occassions for permission for Askarov to attend. The presiding judge denied the requests, saying that before the end of the day he would consider the request for Askarov to attend on Tuesday, 12 July, for the second day of the hearing.
Local sources believe that denying Askarov permission to attend was an attempt to treat the hearing simply as a meeting to discuss the recent UN decision, rather than an actual appeal of his life sentence. Askarov's lawyer stated that the UN decision is not a matter of discussion or debate, and that the Kyrgyz government now has a responsibility to implement the decision. The human rights defender's lawyer said that Askarov's rights had been violated, that there was no need to open a new investigation in the alleged crimes, and that he must be freed unconditionally and have his charges dropped.
At approximately 2pm in Bishkek, the trial was adjourned until Tuesday, 12 July. The lawyer's request that Askarov himself be permitted to attend on Tuesday was neither heard or ruled on.
Denying Askarov access to the court room may constitute a violation of his right to a fair trial, a right protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political RIghts, to which Kyrgisztan has been a party since 1994.
Imprisoned human rights defender Azimjan Askarov is due to appear on court on Monday, 11 July 2016, for an appeals hearing. United Nations human rights bodies, the European Union External Action, and international human rights groups have called for the release of the human rights defender and the repeal of his life sentence.
Azimjan Askarov spent more than a decade investigating and reporting cases of police abuse and poor prison conditions. Before his arrest, he founded and served as director of the organisation Vozdukh ("Air"), which monitors police brutality in Kyrgystan.
On 25 May 2016, approximately twenty people, including persons in military uniform, court bailiffs and representatives of the State Property Fund of Kyrgyzstan (SPFK), called to the house of human rights defender Mr Azimjan Askarov in Bazar-Korgon village, Zhalal-Abad region, in order to prepare official documents for confiscation of the property by the State.
On 25 May 2016, approximately twenty people, including court bailiffs and representatives of the SPFK, arrived at Azimjan Askarov's house for the “purpose of confiscation of the property into the possession of the State”, as they explained to the human rights defender's wife who was present at the time. The people inspected the property, took an inventory and photographs, and then left. Following this, when Azimjan Askarov's legal counsel contacted representatives of the Department of the SPFK in Bazar-Korgon village and the city of Zhalal-Abad regarding the incident, neither was able to provide an official order permitting the confiscation of the human rights defender's property. Instead, the counsel was directed to the SPFK in Bishkek to receive this information. Subsequently the legal counsel received an explanatory note from the SPFK, explaining that the order to confiscate Azimjan Askarov's house was based on a letter from the Office of Court Bailiffs of Bazar-Korgon district dated 3 March 2016. The Office informed the SPFK that the property of the human rights defender had to be transferred to the State in compliance with an earlier decision of the Bazar-Korgon district Court.
This is not the first attempt by the Kyrgyz government to confiscate Azimjan Askarov's house. There is a pending appeal against the decision of one of the court bailiffs in relation to the confiscation of the property. The decision to confiscate the human rights defender's home was adopted despite a clear prohibition, provided in the Penal Enforcement Code of Kyrgyzstan, to confiscate the house of a convicted person if his or her family lives there on a permanent basis. Azimjan Askarov's house, where his wife and children live, is their only residence and therefore according to Kyrgyz law, cannot be taken away from them, even on a court's order. In view of this, Azimjan Askarov's legal counsel is of the opinion that the intention of the SPFK was not to confiscate the property, but rather to exert pressure on the human rights defender and his family.
Front Line Defenders condemns the harassment of the Azimjan Askarov's family, which it believes is directly linked to his legitimate and peaceful work in the defence of human rights in Kyrgyzstan.
3. Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Kyrgyzstan are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions.
On 25 April 2016, Front Line Defenders called for the release of jailed human rights defender Azimjan Askarov, currently serving life imprisonment in Kyrgyzstan.
On 21 April, the United Nations Human Rights Committee called on the Kyrgiz government to free the human rights defender on the basis that he was subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment, and violations of his right to a fair trial.
Irish politician and former Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Eamon Gilmore, who visited Azimjan Askarov in prison in 2014, today reiterated his call on the government of Kyrgyzstan to release him on humanitarian grounds. Front Line Defenders welcomes the statement by the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan - issued on 25 April - that it is willing to consider a review of the Askarov case.
When inter-ethnic violence broke out in 2010, leading to an estimated 400 deaths, Azimjan documented the violence and human rights abuses. As a result, he was himself arrested and charged with having orchestrated ethnic hatred and of having taken part in the murder of a policeman.
On 15 September 2010, Askarov was sentenced to life imprisonment after an unfair trial. The case against him was upheld despite the absence of any credible evidence and a complete failure to investigate serious allegations of torture. During his trial he appeared in court with extensive bruising on his face as a result of beatings in custody. In subsequent appeals even the Human Rights Ombudsman acknowledged that the case against Askarov was politically motivated.
In its statement the United Nations Human Rights Committee said “the Kyrgyz authorities prevented Askarov from adequately preparing his trial defence, as the human rights defender and his lawyer were not allowed to meet in private. It also reports that relatives of the deceased police officer attacked his lawyer, creating “a general sense of fear, incompatible with the proper execution of the defence lawyer’s functions”. Additionally, the lawyer could not attend the first date of the trial, on 2 September 2010, because the court did not notify him on time.
The UNHCR found that the Kyrgyz government violated several articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Kyrgyzstan ratified in 1994. By ratifying the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR Kyrgyzstan recognised the competence of the Committee to make findings on whether there has been a violation and to make recommendations.
“Kyrgyzstan’s own constitution requires the government to comply with the ruling of the Human Rights Committee and Front Line Defenders urges the government to do so as a matter of urgency given Azimjan's fragile health”, said Ms Lawlor.
On 9 December 2014, on the eve of international human rights day, former Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Eamon Gilmore TD travelled to Kyrgyzstan where he was the key note speaker at an OSCE meeting on the need for the regional protection of human rights defenders in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. During the visit Mr Gilmore visited jailed Kyrgyz human rights defender Azimjan Askarov who is serving a life sentence after an unfair trial during which he was brutally tortured.
Azimjan Askarov is a prominent human rights defender in Kyrgyzstan and founder of the human rights organization Vozdukh (Air). He has worked to investigate and report cases of police abuse and poor prison conditions, and as a result was targeted by the authorities who charged him with murdering a policeman during clashes in southern Kyrgyzstan in 2010. The case against him was upheld despite the absence of any credible evidence and a complete failure to investigate serious allegations of torture. During his trial he appeared in court with extensive bruising on his face as a result of beatings in custody. In subsequent appeals even the Human Rights Ombudsman recognised that the case against him was politically motivated.
On 3 September 2014, the Kyrgyzstan Supreme Court rejected the appeal of human rights defender Mr Azimjan Askarov to re-open his case. The Supreme Court's verdict upheld the previous ruling of Bishkek City Court on 16 June 2014 when the court rejected the re-examination of his case.
Four years ago, on 15 September 2010, Azimjan Askarov was sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of organising mass riots and involvement in the killing of a policeman. Azimjan Askarov, who is 64 years old, remains in a penal colony in Bishkek.
Between December 2012 and February 2013, Azimjan Askarov's lawyers travelled to the village of Bazar-Korgon where inter-ethnic violence took place and found seventeen independent witnesses whose testimonies proved the innocence of Azimjan Askarov. The General Prosecutor's office created an investigative commission on 5 May 2013 to re-examine Azimjan Askarov's case. However, the commission was dissolved by the decision of Deputy General Prosecutor on 5 February 2014, when the Prosecutor's Office stated that there were no grounds for reinvestigation of the human rights defender's conviction. This decision was appealed by Azimjan Askarov's lawyers and, on 30 April 2014, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Bishkek ruled that the investigative commission should continue its work since its dissolution was without legal grounds. However, on 16 June 2014 the Bishkek City Court dismissed the Oktyabrskiy District Court's ruling. Azimjan Askarov's lawyers appealed this decision to the Kyrgyzstan Supreme Court.
In the Supreme Court's hearing of the Azimjan Askarov's case on 2 September 2014, a panel of judges agreed to replace a judge who had previously ruled against the human rights defender following a challenge from his lawyers. When the hearing resumed on 3 September 2014, Azimjan Askarov's lawyer was threatened by a man dressed in plain clothes who had asked the lawyer to speak with him outside. Reportedly, the unknown man told the lawyer that he would remember the faces. On the same day, the Supreme Court rejected Azimjan Askarov's appeal.
Azimjan Askarov spent 25 years documenting human rights abuses in Kyrgyzstan. He was arrested on 16 June 2010 following violent clashes the same month between ethnic Kyrgyzs and Uzbeks in south Kyrgyzstan, in which more than 400 people were killed. Azimjan Askarov was tortured in pre-trial detention facilities. However, the General Prosecutor's Office refused to investigate the allegations of torture and various courts, including the Supreme Court, upheld the General Prosecutor's refusal to investigate.
Front Line Defenders is concerned by the Supreme Court's decision to reject the appeal against the decision to dissolve the investigative commission in the case of Azimjan Askarov.
Azimjan Askarov is a prominent human rights defender and director of the human rights organisation “Vozdukh” (Air) based in Bazar Korgon, Jalalabad region of Kyrgyzstan.
Mr. Askarov was imprisoned after the violent ethnic clashes in South Kyrgyzstan during the summer of 2010. He was condemned to life imprisonment following an unfair trial at which the main pieces of evidence presented against him were confessions obtained as a result of torture and testimonies of policemen involved in the events.
Front Line Defenders believes that the imprisonment, unfair trial and torture of Azimjan Askarov are directly related to his legitimate work in the defence of human rights.
In 2011, after visiting Mr. Askarov in prison, a delegation from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) urged Kyrgyzstan’s Supreme Court to take fair trial violations and indications of torture into account when reviewing the case of Mr. Askarov and other defendants convicted in relation to the June 2010 violence in the south of the country.
“We strongly hope that the Supreme Court, as the country’s top judicial oversight body, takes action to prevent what could amount to a major miscarriage of justice,” said Assia Ivantcheva, the deputy head of ODIHR’s human rights department and head of the delegation.
Azimjan has been the subject of several Front Line Defenders Urgent Appeals and Updates (www.frontlinedefenders.org for further information). In February, Director Mary Lawlor was invited to Kyrgyzstan to speak at an EU-Kyrgyzstan meeting. While there, she took the opportunity to visit Azimjan Askarov to discuss additional ways in which Front Line Defenders might provide further support on his behalf.
“So Azimjan has been sacrificed by a cowardly, morally bankrupt government who refuse to do the right thing and act in accordance with even the most basic international standards.” (Mary Lawlor, Executive Director, Front Line Defenders).
Mr Azimjan Askarov is currently facing a civil suit for moral and financial compensation lodged by the wife and mother of policeman Sulaimanov, who was killed on 15 June 2010 in Bazar Korgon.
Azimjan Askarov was previously convicted for his alleged involvement in the killing of Sulaimanov and in inter-ethnic violence in Bazar Korgon. He was condemned to life imprisonment following criminal proceedings marred by the use of torture and unfair trial procedures.
On 21 February 2012, Jalalabad regional court under the chairmanship of Judge E. Chakanov considered the appeal of the decision of the Bazar Korgon court of the Jalalabad region in relation to a claim for financial and moral compensation for the loss of the main breadwinner of their family, brought by Mrs Chinara Bechelova and Mrs Karamat Sulaimanova, the wife and mother, respectively, of the policemen killed. The court of second instance ordered the payment by Azimjan Askarov of 100,000 som (approximately 1,608 euro) as compensation for moral damage and 25,000 som (approximately 402 euro) as compensation for material damage to Chinara Bechelova, and of 50,000 som (approximately 804 euro) as compensation for moral damage to Karamat Sulaimanova.
Azimjan Askarov's lawyers are currently preparing a petition to bring a supervisory judicial review before the Supreme Court.
Previously, on 2 December 2011, the Bazar Korgon court of the Jalalabbad region considered the claim for financial and moral compensation against Azimjan Askarov and the others who had been convicted in the criminal case relating to the policeman's death. The court ordered Azimjan Askarov and the other convicted persons to pay jointly 500,000 som (approximately 8,034 euro) for moral damage and 178,200 som (approximately 2,863 euro) as compensation for material damage to Chinara Bechelova and 300,000 som (approximately 4,822 euro) as compensation for moral damage to Karamat Sulaimanova under Art. 1027 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan.
Azimjan Askarov's lawyers, who are members of Human Rights Center "Citizens against corruption", filed an appeal on the grounds that there was a breach of Art 201. of the Civil Procedure Code and that Azimjan Askarov maintains his innocence and pleaded not guilty during court proceedings. Art. 201 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic stipulates that the decision of a case concerning compensation for moral damage should contain a description of the nature of the offence which caused the moral damage to the victim, the moral rights of the victim and the intangible assets which have been violated as well as information regarding the victim’s moral and/or physical sufferings. These details were not set out in the court's decision and therefore the requirements of Art. 201 were not complied with.
Front Line Defenders believes that the bringing of the civil case is directly related to the criminal case which was based on a flawed investigation, was in flagrant breach of fair procedures and over the course of which the human rights defender was subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. Azimjan Askarov pleaded not guilty to the charge and continues to demand an impartial investigation of his case. As a result of the unjust conviction against Azimjan Askarov in the criminal case, the bringing of a civil case against him was facilitated.
Front Line Defenders expresses serious concern that the civil case is not based on an impartial investigation and considers that a new and impartial investigation into the case should be opened. Front Line Defenders believes that the criminal conviction of Azimjan Askarov was linked to his legitimate human rights work and in particular his work in documenting human rights violations perpetrated in the Jalalabad region in June 2010 and recalls that during the investigation and trial, he was subjected to torture and his witnesses were unable to testify in the court because of threats received.
Front Line Defenders condemns the announcement on 20 December 2011 that the Kyrgyz Supreme Court has upheld the conviction for murder of human rights defender Azimjan Askarov. Reports indicate that the Supreme Court did not seriously address the grossly unfair nature of the original trial and the evidence of torture.
Azimjan Askarov is a prominent human rights defender and Director of the human rights organisation “Vozdukh” (Air) based in Bazar Korgon, Jalalabad region of Kyrgyzstan. He was imprisoned after the violent ethnic clashes that took place in the South of Kyrgyzstan in the summer of 2010.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment following an unfair trial at which the main pieces of evidence presented against him were confessions obtained as a result of torture and testimonies of policemen involved in the events. He has received strong support from human rights defenders of all backgrounds in Kyrgyzstan but his case has become a political rather than a judicial issue with different political figures playing to a Kyrgyz nationalist audience.
On 15 September 2010, Azimjan Askarov was one of eight defendants of ethnic Uzbek origin found guilty of inciting national hatred and organising mass disorders which resulted in killing a policeman during ethnically charged clashes in the southern Kyrgyz village of Bazar-Korgon in June 2010. Askarov was accused of complicity in the murder. No credible evidence has been presented to link him to the murder. Front Line Defenders observed part of the first instance trial and reported grave violations of the judicial proceedings, including threats made in the courtroom, and of the right to a fair trial.
Grave concerns have been raised both nationally and internationally regarding the fairness of the original trial, the treatment of Azimjan Askarov, and the credibility of the evidence used to convict him. The Kyrgyz Human Rights Ombudsman Mr Tursunbek Akun, who carried out a parallel investigation, said that there was no evidence to link Azimjan Askarov to the crime – and that the charges against him were clearly politically motivated.
During his interrogation in a prison in Jalal-Abad, Azimjan Askarov was subjected to torture. He was also reportedly beaten, along with other defendants after an appeal hearing at Nooken Regional Court on 5 November 2010. Azimjan Askarov's health began to deteriorate as a result. On 12 November 2010, following increased pressure from the international community, Azimjan Askarov was transferred to a penitentiary institution in Bishkek where he received medical attention. Representatives of Front Line Defenders met him at the penitentiary in Bishkek where he gave testimony about the torture he had endured but also stressed that some prison officials had tried to help him.
After visiting prominent human rights defender Azimjan Askarov in prison on 16 December 2011 a delegation from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) urged Kyrgyzstan’s Supreme Court to take fair trial violations and indications of torture into account when reviewing the case of Askarov and other defendants convicted in relation to the June 2010 violence in the south of the country.
“We strongly hope that the Supreme Court, as the country’s top judicial oversight body, takes action to prevent what could amount to a major miscarriage of justice,” said Assia Ivantcheva, the deputy head of ODIHR’s human rights department and head of the delegation. Sadly this has not happened.
Earlier in December, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Méndez, visited Askarov in prison and expressed concern about the denial of justice in his case. As a participating State of the OSCE, Kyrgyzstan is bound by international fair trial standards as enshrined in OSCE commitments and is obliged to take effective administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent and punish torture and ill-treatment.
Front Line Defenders has called on the Irish Government which will take on the Chairmanship of the OSCE in 2012 to take up Azimjan Askarov's case.
Imprisoned human rights defender Azimjan Askarov today (03 November) continues his appeal against a life sentence imposed after an unfair trial marked by threats, intimidation and denial of due process.
Front Line is calling for the immediate and unconditional release of imprisoned human rights defender Azimjan Askarov, recently sentenced to life imprisonment after a trial in which the defendant, witnesses and lawyers for the defence were routinely threatened and intimidated, including in the courtroom itself.
During the initial hearing, Azimjan Askarov's lawyer, Nurbek Toktakunov, was heckled by supporters of the prosecution, who shouted “You are working for western money, we will kill you. We will kill your family and will eat your children”.
Four of the defendants in the original hearing, including Azimjan Askarov, bore visible traces on their faces of recent beatings, which had not been visible at the previous hearing.
Azimjan Askarov had a bruised eye. Nurbek Toktakunov requested that the hearing be deferred to allow him more time to prepare an adequate defence, and petitioned for his client to undergo a thorough medical exam. It was denied.
Later, Azimjan Askarov was questioned by the judge and stated that no one had harmed him, and that the bruise had been caused while he was being brought to the courtroom with other defendants on a previous occasion during which he lost his shoe and bumped his head into the back of the other defendant. He refused a medical exam.
In addition, concerns are expressed regarding breaches of fair trial procedure during the course of the hearing. Nurbek Toktakunov's request to meet with his client was rejected by the Judge. Both the Judge and the Prosecutor noted that the lawyer could meet with his client at the end of the trial process.
Members of the audience directed questions from the floor to the defendants during the hearing without being authorised by the Judge to do so. In addition, the accused did not receive a full explanation of their rights and responsibilities.
Azimjan Askarov's relatives and supporters were reportedly intimidated and threatened against attending the hearing. It has been reported that at a previous hearing on 2 September, his relatives were not allowed to enter the courtroom, being pushed out by relatives of the deceased policeman who threatened them not to attempt to attend his trial again.
Front Line remains gravely concerned for the physical and psychological security and integrity of Azimjan Askarov in prison, and for the safety of his relatives and supporters given new and credible reports of the use of torture, including asphyxiation.
In particular, allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Aminjan Askarov whilst in detention are extremely worrying, particularly given the decision of Jalalabad City Court on 26 July 2010 to uphold a decision by the General Prosecutor's Office of Jalalabad not to investigate claims that Azimjan Askarov was tortured or ill-treated after his arrest, on the basis that injuries he suffered were inflicted by a cell-mate.
Furthermore, Front Line is gravely concerned regarding violations of due process and the right to a fair and impartial trial, which were observed while attending the hearing.
In particular, Front Line draws attention to Article 26 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, which provides that "everyone is presumed innocent of committing a crime until his guilt is proved in accordance with law and established by a legally binding court decision", and to Article 31 of the Constitution, which prohibits “advocacy of national, ethnic, racial or religious hatred, gender and other social superiority, calling to discrimination, hostility or violence".
Front Line is concerned regarding various breaches of fair trial provisions outlined in Article 18 of the Krygyz Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding "Implementation of the proceedings on the basis of competition and equality of the parties".
Finally, Front Line reminds the Kyrgyz authorities of the criminalisation of "Actions aimed at inciting national, racial or religious hatred, humiliation of national dignity, and propaganda of exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of citizens on the grounds of their religion, nationality or race, if committed publicly or with the use of mass media," under Article 299 of the Penal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Front Line was represented by an observer at the trial hearing of human rights defender Mr Azimjan Askarov which took place on 6 September 2010 at the regional court at Nooken, a small town near Bazar Korgon in the Jalalabad region of southern Kyrgyzstan. The trial hearing was not in conformity with the Kyrgyz constitution nor with international fair trial standards. The defendant, Azimjan Askarov, showed visible signs of having been beaten.
Azimjan Askarov, who is of Uzbek ethnic origin, is accused of complicity in the murder of a policeman during the ethnic violence which took place in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 but no credible evidence has yet been presented to link him to the murder.
A verdict is expected in the trial on 15 September. The prosecutor in the case has requested that the court impose a life sentence on Azimjan Askarov. Front Line has previously issued several urgent appeals in relation to harassment, intimidation and violent attacks against Azimjan Askarov and his supporters, as well as the suspected torture of Azimjan Askarov in detention.
On 6 September posters were placed on the doors of the courthouse in Nooken demanding the execution of Azimjan Askarov, along with seven other individuals of Uzbek ethnicity who are also accused of involvement in the murder of the policeman. These posters were largely of an anti-Uzbek, racist nature. A Front Line observer who attended the hearing reported that the courtroom was filled with policemen in uniform, along with the family of the deceased policeman and their supporters. When the eight defendants entered the courtroom, the family of the deceased policeman attempted to violently attack them, shouting anti-Uzbek statements, and demanding the execution of the accused. During the hearing, Azimjan Askarov's lawyer, Nurbek Toktakunov, was heckled by supporters of the prosecution, who shouted “You are working for western money, we will kill you. We will kill your family and will eat your children”.
Four of the defendants, including Azimjan Askarov, bore visible traces on their faces of recent beatings, which had not been visible at the previous hearing. Azimjan Askarov had a bruised eye. Nurbek Toktakunov requested that the hearing be deferred to allow him more time to prepare an adequate defence, and petitioned for his client to undergo a thorough medical exam. It was denied. Later, Azimjan Askarov was questioned by the judge and stated that no one had harmed him, and that the bruise had been caused while he was being brought to the courtroom with other defendants on a previous occasion during which he lost his shoe and bumped his head into the back of the other defendant. He refused a medical exam. Attached is a photograph of Azimjan Askarov, taken by his lawyer at the trial, which shows his injuries.
In addition, concerns are expressed regarding breaches of fair trial procedure during the course of the hearing. Nurbek Toktakunov's request to meet with his client was rejected by the Judge. Both the Judge and the Prosecutor noted that the lawyer could meet with his client at the end of the trial process. Members of the audience directed questions from the floor to the defendants during the hearing without being authorised by the Judge to do so. In addition, the accused did not receive a full explanation of their rights and responsibilities.
Front Line remains gravely concerned for the physical and psychological security and integrity of Azimjan Askarov in prison, and for the safety of his relatives and supporters. In particular, allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Aminjan Askarov whilst in detention are extremely worrying, particularly given the decision of Jalalabad City Court on 26 July 2010 to uphold a decision by the General Prosecutor's Office of Jalalabad not to investigate claims that Azimjan Askarov was tortured or ill-treated after his arrest, on the basis that injuries he suffered were inflicted by a cell-mate.
Furthermore, Front Line is gravely concerned regarding violations of due process and the right to a fair and impartial trial, which were observed while attending the hearing. In particular, Front Line draws attention to Article 26 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, which provides that "everyone is presumed innocent of committing a crime until his guilt is proved in accordance with law and established by a legally binding court decision", and to Article 31 of the Constitution, which prohibits “advocacy of national, ethnic, racial or religious hatred, gender and other social superiority, calling to discrimination, hostility or violence". Front Line is concerned regarding various breaches of fair trial provisions outlined in Article 18 of the Krygyz Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding "Implementation of the proceedings on the basis of competition and equality of the parties".
The trial of human rights defender Mr Azimjan Askarov has been scheduled to take place on 2 September 2010 in Nooken regional court, close to Bazar Korgon in the Jalalabad region of south Kyrgyzstan. The presiding judge will reportedly come from Bazar Korgon.
Azimjan Askarov has been charged with various offences under the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan, including Art. 28, 30-227 (”attempting to participate in hostage taking”), Art. 241 (”illegal acquisition and storage of ammunition”), Art. 299-2 (“acquisition and storage of extremist information”) , Article 299 (“initiation of national, race, religious hatred, insult of national dignity, propaganda of supremacy or deficiency of citizens on the basis of their religious, national or race background”), Art. 233 (“mass riots”), Art. 30-97 (“co-participation in murder”), and Art. 30-340, (“co-participation in murder of police officers”).
Azimjan Askarov's charges were initiated in relation to the events of 13 June 2010. During violence between ethnic Kyrgyzs and Uzbeks in Bazar Korgon, a policeman from Bazar Korgon Department of Internal Affairs, Mr M. Sulaymanov, was killed while seven other policemen were injured. Azimjan Askarov was arrested in connection to the killing on 15 June and has been held since then in Jalalabad police station, the same station where the deceased policeman formerly worked.
Azimjan Askarov's lawyer, Mr Nurbek Toktakunov, filed a petition for the trial to be postponed and transfered fron Bazar Korgon to Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital. Following previous violent attacks on Nurbek Toktakunov and relatives of Azimjan Askarov, there are serious grounds to believe that the human rights defender will not recieve a fair trial if the hearing takes place in Bazar Korgon. In two separate incidents, Nurbek Toktakunov and Azimjan Askarov's sister in law were assaulted within Jalalabad police station by mobs which included relatives of the deceased policeman, with the complicity of local police who stood by during the attacks.
Furthermore, there have been reliable reports that Azimjan Askarov was beaten and tortured during interrogation following his arrest. On 26 July 2010, Jalalabad City Court upheld a decision by the General Prosecutor's Office of Jalalabad not to investigate claims that Azimjan Askarov was tortured or ill-treated. The General Prosecutor's office claims that bruises to Azimjan Askarov's body which were photographed by Nurbek Toktakunov were caused by his cellmate, that the human rights defender has denied that he was ill-treated and that he does not want the cellmate to be investigated for assault. In addition Azimjan Askarov has reportedly been prevented from meeting Nurbek Toktakunov in private to work on the case.
Front Line reiterates its previous calls for the immediate transfer of Azimjan Askarov to a more secure place of detention in Bishkek, failing his immediate and unconditional release from detention. Front Line believes that the detention and prosecution of Azimjan Askarov are directly linked to his peaceful activities in the defense of human rights, and views this case as illustrative of the deteriorating situation for human rights defenders in the context of the ethnic violence taking place in south Kyrgyzstan.
On 2 August 2010, lawyer Mr Nurbek Toktakunov was attacked while visiting his client, imprisoned human rights defender Mr Azimjan Askarov in Jalalabad regional police station.
Azimjan Askarov is currently being held in the Bazar Korgon pretrial detention facility following his arrest on 15 June 2010. He has been charged with organising riots during violence in South Kyrgyzstan in June, in which a police officer was killed. Azimjan Askarov is Director of the human rights organisation “Vozdukh” (Air) in Bazar Korgon. Front Line has previously issued an appeal regarding his case on 20 June 2010.
Nurbek Toktakunov had just begun a meeting with Azimjan Askarov in Jalalabad police station on 2 August 2010 when policemen interrupted, ending the meeting and taking the human rights defender away. They explained that this was for security reasons, stating that the relatives of a Mr Sulaymanov, who was killed during riots between ethnic Uzbeks and Kyrgyzs, were going to come to the police station. At that moment, an unknown young man saw the lawyer through the window and asked a policeman why he had told him that Nurbek Toktakunov was not present at the police station. The young man threatened to go inside and to punish Nurbek Toktakunov for defending an Uzbek.
The young man then entered the police station without impediment, and together with other unknown men and women circled the lawyer, took his suitcase and threatened him with reprisal if he did not agree to withdraw from Azimjan Askarov's case. At that moment the policemen present disappeared. The attack against Nurbek Toktakunov eventually stopped when representatives of the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Jalalabad intervened; only afterwards did police intervene. Nurbek Toktakunov's shirt was torn during the attack. This incident took place close to the Bazar Korgon pretrial detention facility, where Azimjan Askarov is being held. Security at the detention centre is low, and it is believed that the attackers could easily have entered and gained access to Azimjan Askarov.
This attack forms part of an ongoing trend of harassment and attacks against Azimjan Askarov, his family and his supporters. On 23 June 2010 Nurbek Toktakunov was threatened near the same police station by an aggressive crowd in relation to his role as defence attorney for Azimjan Askarov. On 27 July 2010, Front Line issued an urgent appeal regarding the assault and beating of Ms Turdihon Askarova, Azimjan Askarov's sister-in-law, by a group of Kyrgyz women while she attempted to deliver a food parcel to the human rights defender at the police station. Law enforcement representatives present at the scene did not intervene. It has been reported that relatives of the police officer who was killed – who formerly worked at Bazar Korgon police station - were present in the groups of people involved in the attacks against both Nurbek Toktakunov and Turdihon Askarova.
On 26 July 2010, Jalalabad City Court upheld a decision by the General Prosecutor's Office of Jalalabad not to investigate claims that Azimjan Askarov was tortured or ill-treated after his arrest. The General Prosecutor's office claims that bruises to Azimjan Askarov's body which were photographed by Nurbek Toktakunov were caused by his cellmate, that the human rights defender has denied that he was ill-treated and that he does not want the cellmate to be investigated for assault. In addition Azimjan Askarov has reportedly been prevented from meeting Nurbek Toktakunov in private to work on the case.
In the context of the current climate of violence, revenge and popular justice in Bazar Korgon, the repeated attacks by members of the public and the non-assistance by law enforcement officials reinforce Front Line's fears for the physical and psychological security of Azimjan Askarov, his lawyer and members of his family.
Front Line reiterates its serious concern regarding the charges pending against Azimjan Askarov, and the difficulty in obtaining an objective and impartial investigation and fair legal process. Front Line continues to believe that the detention of, and legal charges against, Azimjan Askarov are a direct result of his legitimate human rights work.
On 2 August 2010, lawyer Mr Nurbek Toktakunov was attacked while visiting his client, imprisoned human rights defender Mr Azimjan Askarov in Jalalabad regional police station. Azimjan Askarov is currently being held in the Bazar Korgon pretrial detention facility following his arrest on 15 June 2010. He has been charged with organising riots during violence in South Kyrgyzstan in June, in which a police officer was killed.
Subsequent to the Front Line Urgent Appeal issued on 16 June 2010, Front Line has received the following new information concerning the arrest and detention of human rights defender Mr Azimjan Askarov: Azimjan Askarov is reportedly being subjected to ill-treatment in detention in Bazar Korgon police station. Azimjan Askarov has not yet been informed of the charges against him and is being detained incommunicado.
According to Front Line's sources, Azimjan Askarov's brother - who was arrested and detained together with Azimjan Askarov - has alleged that Azimjan Askarov was beaten and tortured during the interrogation, and fears for his life.
On the morning of 17 June 2010, unknown masked men broke into the house of Azimjan Askarov and attempted to carry out an illegal search thereof. However, they were prevented from doing so by journalists and other human rights defenders who were present at the time. It is reported that two similar attempts had previously been made. Kyrgyzstan's ombudsman Mr Tursunbek Akun, who has been ordered by interim president Roza Otunbaeva to follow the case closely, gave a press conference on 17 June in which he declared that the detention and accusations against Azimjan Askarov are unfounded. On the same day, numerous human rights organisations sent a letter to the interim government calling for the immediate release of Azimjan Askarov.
Azimjan Askarov was detained by representatives of Bazar Korgon police department on 15 June 2010. He is reportedly suspected of taking part in ethnic hostilities between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in the south of Kyrgyzstan. Azimjan Askarov had been working on documenting the human rights violations committed in this region. For some days previous to his detention, he had been collecting data about those who had been killed and injured during the recent ethnic conflict.
Front Line believes that the arrest of Mr Azimjan Askarov are linked to his peaceful activities in the defense of human rights in the most difficult and dangerous situation which Kyrgyzstan is currently facing. Front Line fears for the physical and psychological security of Azimjan Askarov in police detention facilities of Bazar Korgon. Front Line reiterates its call for the immediate and unconditional release of Azimjan Askarov and calls for all charges against him to be dropped.
On the evening of 15 June 2010, human rights defender Azimjan Askarov was detained by representatives of Bazar Korgon police department. He is reportedly suspected of taking part in ethnic hostilities between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in the south of Kyrgyzstan. Azimjan Askarov had been working on documenting the human rights violations committed in this region: for some days previous to his detention, he had been collecting data about those who had been killed and injured during the recent ethnic conflict. According to Ms Valentina Gritsenko, chairwoman of the NGO Spravedlivost (Justice) based in Jalalabad, Azimjan Askarov had obtained video footage of atrocities which had taken place, and the police were aware of that.
Shortly after the arrest, on 15 June, a group of Kyrgyz human rights defenders published a statement in which they expressed their concern regarding the arrest and stressed that Azimjan Askarov worked peacefully on monitoring of human rights violations committed, and called for an end of the hostilities. It has also been reported that another journalist was detained during the hostilities.
Front Line believes that the arrest and detention of Mr Azimjan Askarov are directly related to his peaceful activities in the defence of human rights during the humanitarian catastrophe which Kyrgyzstan is currently facing. Front Line stresses the essential role played by human rights defenders in conflict resolution and peace making processes. The detention of human rights defenders during this period of extremely violent ethnic conflict thus sends a worrying message to civil society in Kyrgyzstan.


2015—Pub. L. 114–58, title VI, § 601(2), Sept. 30, 2015, 129 Stat. 538, which directed amendment of this analysis by striking item “521A” and adding item 521A, was executed by striking item 512A “Adaptive sports programs for disabled veterans and members of the Armed Forces” and adding item 521A, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
2013—Pub. L. 113–59, § 5(h)(2), Dec. 20, 2013, 127 Stat. 662, which directed amendment of this analysis by striking item 521A and adding item “512A”, was executed by striking item 521A “Assistance for United States Olympic Committee” and adding item 512A in the position for item 521A, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
2012—Pub. L. 112–154, title VII, §§ 707(b), 709(b)(2), Aug. 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 1207, 1208, added item 517 and substituted “Authority to advertise in national media; VetStar Award Program” for “Authority to advertise in national media” in item 532.
2008—Pub. L. 110–389, title II, § 214(b), title VII, § 702(b), title VIII, § 809(b), Oct. 10, 2008, 122 Stat. 4154, 4183, 4190, added items 521A, 532, and 546.
1998—Pub. L. 105–368, title IX, § 906(b), title X, § 1001(a)(2), Nov. 11, 1998, 112 Stat. 3362, 3363, added items 530 and 531.
1997—Pub. L. 105–114, title I, § 101(a)(2), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2279, added item 516.
1996—Pub. L. 104–262, title III, § 333(a)(2), Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3200, added item 545.
1994—Pub. L. 103–446, title V, § 510(b), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4670, added item 544.
1992—Pub. L. 102–405, title I, § 105(b)(2), Oct. 9, 1992, 106 Stat. 1976, added item 543.


Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fluids containing a mixture of water, proppant and chemical additives in order to either expand existing fractures or open newly created ones within rock formations for the exploration or exploitation of oil and gas. The nature of the chemicals used during the hydraulic fracturing process has received a lot of attention in recent years amid concerns over potential health and environmental effects. These concerns have led to the voluntary disclosure of chemicals by some companies as well as efforts at both the federal and state levels to impose mandatory chemical disclosure requirements upon well operators. This article will briefly address chemical disclosure at the state level and then provide a more comprehensive discussion of efforts to mandate chemical disclosure at the federal level.
As states have enacted mandatory chemical disclosure, many of these states require that well operators utilize the FracFocus website to accomplish the required disclosure. At least 23 states use FracFocus for chemical reporting, including the states of California, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
More information on the details of state requirements can be obtained by reviewing individual state statutes including Wyoming (Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Chapter 3, § 45), Arkansas (Arkansas Oil & Gas Commission Rule B-19), Louisiana (LAC Title 43:XIX § 118), Michigan (Supervisor of Wells Instruction 1-2011), Montana (Mont. Adm. Code Rule: 36.22.1015), West Virginia (W. Va. Code § 22-6A-7), Colorado (2 CCR §404-1:205A), Idaho (IDAPA 20.07.02.056), Indiana (312 IAC Rule 12-292), New Mexico (NMAC§ 19.15.16.19), North Dakota (N.D. Admin. Code § 43-02-03-27.1), Ohio (Ohio Rev. Code § 1509.10; Ohio Admin Code § 1509), Pennsylvania (58 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3222.1), Texas (16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.29), and Oklahoma (Okla. Adm. Code § 165:10-3-10).
At the federal level, President Barack Obama issued, in March 2011, a Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future within which he called upon the Secretary of Energy to implement a more environmentally focused approach to the use of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. In May 2011, following the Blueprint release, a Shale Gas Subcommittee was commissioned to provide the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) with recommendations on the immediate actions that needed to be taken to ensure that measures were in place to provide for environmental and public health protection from shale gas exploration and development activities.
In January 2012, during the State of the Union Address, President Obama declared that the government would require all energy companies to disclose any of the chemicals used during the process of hydraulic fracturing on federal lands. Subsequently, on May 11, 2012, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule titled Oil and Gas; Well Stimulation, Including Hydraulic Fracturing, on Federal and Indian Lands providing, among other measures, disclosure to the public of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on public and Indian lands. BLM released its Final Rule on March 26, 2015, requiring public disclosure of all chemicals after fracturing operations are completed, notably through the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry. The Final Rule was to become effective on June 24, 2015.
On the same day of the issuance of the Final Rule, the state of Wyoming filed a petition for review in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming alleging that BLM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction in regulating hydraulic fracturing (state of Wyoming v. U.S. Department of the Interior, docket no. 2:15-cv-043). As part of their arguments, the state of Wyoming argued that states have sole authority to legislate on hydraulic fracturing pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
On June 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court issued a temporary order delaying the effective date of BLM’s Final Rule governing hydraulic fracturing on Federal and Indian lands. This temporary order remained in effect until the U.S. District Court made a final ruling in favor of Wyoming on June 22, 2016, that BLM did not have the authority to promulgate such rule. Two days later, the U.S. Department of the Interior filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (docket no. 16-8068). The appeal is still pending at the present time. Thus, at the present time, the BLM Final Rule is not in effect.
Meanwhile, EPA also has initiated the regulatory process to mandate chemical disclosure for hydraulic fracturing operations through the issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on May 19, 2014. This ANPR sought public comment on the types of chemical information that should be reported and disclosed and the means by which this information could be obtained. This action by EPA followed the submission of a petition from Earthjustice and 114 other non-governmental organizations in August 2011 asking the agency to issue specific rules about toxicity testing and reporting of chemical substances and mixtures used in oil and gas exploration or production under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In the ANPR, EPA decided to address only the regulatory issue of chemical reporting. The public comment period closed in September 2014. EPA has not yet issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking though, in the past, it has indicated an intention to do so in order to obtain data on hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures.
There also have been legislative attempts to impose mandatory disclosure requirements for chemicals used during the hydraulic fracturing process by amending the Safe Drinking Water Act. On April 6, 2017, U.S. Senator Robert Casey, Jr., introduced S. 865 seeking to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act and to provide for the mandatory disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals. S. 865 is known as the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act or FRAC Act. This legislation requires operators to disclose a list of chemical constituents intended to be used for hydraulic fracturing prior to the commencement of any operations as well as a list of chemicals actually used following the conclusion of operations. Similar legislation has been introduced in past legislative sessions, but has not advanced through the legislative process.
Thus, administrative and legislative efforts to date have not resulted in specific federal laws regulating chemical disclosure relating to hydraulic fracturing. There are, however, some statutes that address broadly the issue of chemical disclosure for operators carrying out hydraulic fracturing operations. These statutes include the Toxic Substances Control Act, cited above, requiring chemical manufacturers and processors to maintain and develop data on the effects of chemicals on human health and the environment; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, requiring chemical manufacturers and importers to provide detailed information through Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to workers on the chemicals used and handled during the work process; and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, establishing programs with the aim of providing public access to information on hazardous chemicals found in the environment.


The Buyer hereby expressly purchases for purposes which are outside his trade or his profession.
The goods subject to these terms and conditions are sold by OFFICINE ITALIANE ZARD SRL, here after indicated as “Supplier”, is located in Via Nazionale 11-14011 Baldichieri d'Asti (AT) Italy, VAT 09249740011.
1.1. The term "contract of on line sale " refers to purchase agreement relating to movable assets of the Supplier. The contract stipulated between purchaser and supplier is based on a distance sale via telematic tools, organized by the Supplier .
1.2. The term "Purchaser" refers to individual person who purchases something for purposes not related to commercial or professional activity.
1.3. The term "Supplier" refers to a person who provide information services.
2.1. Through this contract, the Supplier sells to the Purchaser via telematic means motorbike spare parts shown for sale on the website: www.officineitalianezard.it.
2.2. The products sold are shown in the following webpage: www.officineitalianezard.it.
3.1. The contract between the Supplier and the Buyer concludes exclusively by Internet. The Purchaser should visit the official website www.officineitalianezard.it and follow the procedures outlined in order to formalize the proposal of purchasing goods.
4.1. The purchase contract is considered concluded by a correct filling of the on-line application form attached to the e-catalogue on the website www.officineitalianezard.it and the consensus expressed by the Buyer. More precisely, after the visualization of the summary order in which are shown all details of the payer and the order, the price of the goods purchased, the shipping charges and any additional charges, payment methods and terms, the address where the goods will be delivered, delivery time and the right of withdrawal.
4.2. At the moment in which the Supplier receives the order by the Buyer, he shall send an email of confirmation and summary order that is printable and where all data of the previous point are also reported.
4.3. The contract is not considered as perfect and effective between the parties at fault as indicated in the previous paragraph.
5.1. Every payment on behalf of the Buyer will only be made by one of the methods indicated in the proper web page by the Supplier.
5.2. Any possible refund will be promptly credited to the Purchaser by one of the methods proposed by the Supplier and based on the choice of the Buyer. In case of the right of withdrawal, as ordered by art. 13, paragraph 2 et seq. of this contract, no later than 30 days from the date during which the Supplier has become aware of the withdrawal.
5.3. All communications relating to payments are made on a dedicated Supplier line and protected by a coding system. The Supplier guarantees the storage of this information with an additional level of security coding system and in accordance to current legislation regarding the protection of personal data.
6.2. The delivery time may vary from the day you have placed the order to a maximum of 15 working days from the confirmation of the same. In case the Supplier is unable to ship within this period the Buyer will be promptly informed by an e-mail.
6.3. Conditions, time and shipping costs are clearly stated and well-marked at http://www.officineitalianezard.it/it/pages/index/pagamenti 13/.
7.1. All prices shown on the website www.officineitalianezard.it are expressed in euro and constitute a public offer according to art. 1336 of Civil Code.
7.2. For UE countries prices include taxes (VAT). For Extra UE countries taxes are not included. Shipping costs, where present, even if not included in the purchase price, must be indicated and calculated by the Buyer before placing the order. They must also appear in the summary web page of the order.
7.3. The prices indicated for each item shall be valid until the date indicated in the catalogue.
8.1. Should an order exceed an existing quantity in stock, the Supplier will inform the Purchaser by e-mail if the good……..no longer be ordered or how long will be the waiting time to get the chosen goods, asking if he intends to confirm the order or not.
8.2. The computer system will confirm the order, as soon as it is possible, by e-mail, according to Section 4.2.
9.1. The Supplier shall not assume any liability for disruptions caused by external forces, in case he cannot process the order on the date indicated in the contract.
9.2. The Supplier shall not be liable to the Buyer, except in cases of willful misconduct or great negligence and for Internet malfunctions, beyond his own or his sub-supplying control.
9.3. Moreover, the Supplier will not be liable for any damages, losses and costs incurred by the Buyer, for reasons not related to the failing contract linked to him. The Buyer shall only be entitled to a refund of the price paid and any extra charges incurred .
9.4. The Supplier assumes no responsibility for any possible fraudulent or illegal use, may be made by third parties, of credit cards, bank checks and other payment methods for the payment of the purchased products, in case he proves that he has taken all possible precautions based on the best knowledge and experience of the moment and on the basis of ordinary diligence.
9.5. The Buyer shall never be considered liable for delays or mistakes in payment if he proves he has made the payment in the time and condition specified by the Supplier.
10.1. In accordance of the articles. 114 ff. of the Consumer Code, the Supplier is liable for the damage caused by defects of the sold goods in case he fails to notify the Damaged party within three months of the request, the identity and address of the producer or of the person who supplied him with the good .
10.2. The above request by the Damaged, must be in writing and indicate the product which caused the damage, the place and date of the purchase; It must also contain the offer of the product, if it still exists.
10.3. The Supplier shall not be considered responsible for the consequences originated from a faulty product if the defect is due to the conformity of the product, an imperative legal rule or a binding measure, in other words if the scientific and technical knowledge at the time when the Supplier produced the product did not allow to consider the product as faulty.
10.4. No refund will be due if the Injured party was aware of the defect of the product and the following danger and nevertheless he voluntarily exposed himself to.
10.5. In any case, the Damaged party will have to prove the defect, the damage and the causal relationship between defect and damage.
10.6. The Damaged party will be entitled to claim a compensation for the damages caused by death, or personal injury or destruction or determination of something from the faulty product provided that it is of the kind that normally intended to the use or private consume and mainly used by the Damaged party.
10.7. In pursuance of art. 123 of the Code of consumer, the damage to things will be compensated only in amounts exceeding the sum of € 387.
11.1. The Supplier is liable for any possible deficiency of conformity which appeares within a period of 2 years from the delivery of the goods.
d) are also suitable to the specific use chosen by the consumer and that this one has informed the Seller at the conclusion of the Contract and the seller has accepted even for conclusive circumstances.
11.3. The Buyer loses all rights if he does not report the lack of conformity to the Seller within two months since when the defect was discovered. The complaint is not required if the Seller has recognized the existence of the defect or has concealed it.
11.4. In any case, unless it is contrary proved, it is assumed that the deficiency of conformity which appear within 6 month from the good delivery already existed at that date, unless such a theory is incompatible with the good nature or with the deficiency nature.
11.5. In case a product does not satisfy the standards, Buyer will be allowed to ask, without any charge at the following indicated conditions of conformity deficiency, the repairing or replacement of the purchased item, a reduction of the purchase price or the dissolution of this contract, unless the request results objectively not impossible to satisfy, or excessively to satisfy for the Supplier in accordance to art. 130, paragraph 4, of the Consumer Code.
11.6. The request will have to be sent in writing or by a registered letter sent to the Supplier, who will indicate his availability to satisfy the request, or the reasons that prevent him to do it, within 7 working days from delivery.
In the same letter, where the Supplier has accepted the request, he will have to indicate the conditions of delivery or return of the good, as well as the deadline for the return or replacement of the faulty good.
11.7. Should repair or replacement be impossible or excessively expensive, or the Supplier has failed to provide the repair or replacement of the goods within the period previously indicated, or al last the replacement or repair previously made have caused significant inconveniences to the Buyer, this one, at his choice, can claim an appropriate reduction of the price or rescission of the contract. The Purchaser will be allowed to send his request to the Supplier, who will indicate his own to carry on the practice, or the reasons that prevent him from doing it within 7 working days from the receipt.
11.8. In the same communication where the Supplier has accepted the Purchaser request, he will have to indicate the reduction of the proposed price or the return of the faulty good. In such cases the Buyer will have to indicate the condition for the refund of the amounts previously paid to the Supplier.
12.1. The Buyer agrees to pay the price of the purchased goods within times and conditions specified by the contract.
12.2. Once the online purchase process is concluded, the Buyer will have to keep and print this contract.
12.3. The dates contained in this contract have already been examined and accepted by the Purchaser before purchase confirmation.
13.1. The Purchaser has, in any case, the right to withdraw from the contract without any penalty and without specifying the reason within the term of 10 (ten) working days from the day of receipt of the purchased good.
13.2. In case the Supplier has failed to give information about the existence, time and conditions concerning the return or collection of the goods in case of the exercise of the right of withdrawal in pursuance of Art. 52 of the Consumer Code, the deadline for exercising the right of withdrawal is ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the goods by the consumer.
13.3. In case the Buyer decides to exercise the right of withdrawal, he has to inform the Seller by e-mail to the e-mail address: info@officineitalianezard.it. That e-mail will be replied with the directives to follow the right by free withdraw (Italy only) by the courier indicated by the company. For countries outside the Italian territory, shipping costs will be borne by the buyer.
13.4. To be entitled to a full refund of the paid price, except for the delivery costs, the goods must return intact, and in any case, normally presented in the original box and with its original packaging. Damaged, scratched products, and used or with signs due to transportation, installation or use of the good itself will not be refunded.
13.5. The Purchaser cannot exercise such right of withdrawal for tailored or clearly personalized products or that, for their nature, they cannot be returned because they are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly, such as: newspapers, periodicals and magazines , and goods whose price is linked to fluctuations of the financial market, which the Seller is not in condition to control and in any other case provided by art. 55 of the Consumer Code.
13.6. The Supplier will provide for the refund of the entire amount paid by the Buyer within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice of withdrawal.
13.7. With the receipt of the notice by which the Purchaser notifies the exercise of the right of withdrawal, the parties of the current contract are released by the mutual obligations, except for the points provided in the previous paragraphs of this Article.
14.1. The obligations described in paragraph 12.1, assumed by the Buyer, as well as the guarantee of payment by conditions indicated in paragraph 5.1, and also the exact fulfillment of the obligations assumed by the Supplier in paragraph 6, are considered essential. Therefore, by expressed agreement, the failure of one of these obligations, if not due to force majeure, will determine the end of the contract in pursuance of Art. 1456, without any judicial decision.
15.1. The Supplier protects the privacy of his own customers and guarantee that the processing of data in accordance with what provided by the Legislation on the privacy of Jun. 30, 2003, n. 196.
15.2. The Personal and fiscal data directly acquired and / or through third parties by the Supplier OFFICINE ITALIANE ZARD SRL who is the data controller, are collected and processed in paper, telematics, electronic format, according to processing conditions to register the order and, as consequence, start this contract with all necessary communications and fulfillment of any legal obligations as stated in art. 24, paragraph 1, lett. b, Legislative Decree no. 196/2003.
15.3. The Supplier has the obligation to treat data and information sent by the Buyer with confidentiality and not disclose them to unauthorized persons, neither to use them for purposes different from those for which they were collected, or to send them to third parties data as confidential information and should not disclose to unauthorized persons. This information may be disclosed only upon request of the court or other authority authorized by law.
15.4. Personal data will be transmitted, prior signing confidentiality obligation of the same data, only to persons delegated to carry out necessary activities for the execution of the contract and transmitted only for that purpose.
c) the certification that the operations described at points a) and b) have been notified, also for their contents, to those to who the data were communicated or distributed to, except for the case in which such fulfillment proves impossible or involves a use of evidently disproportionate means to the protective right. The person concerned has the right to oppose to in whole or in part: i) for legitimate reasons to the processing of personal data, pertinent for collection purposes;ii) the processing of personal data concerning the sending of advertising materials, or direct selling, or for market research or commercial communication.
15.6. The communication of personal data by the Purchaser is a necessary condition for the proper and prompt execution of this contract. Failing this, the request cannot be accepted by the Supplier.
15.7. In any case, the data will be kept for a period of time no longer than necessary for the purposes for which they were collected or subsequently processed. Their removal will take place in a secure manner.
15.8. The Supplier is responsible for the collection and processing of personal data. The Purchaser will address any request to the Supplier.
15.9. Any communications sent to the email (even electronic) of the Center (requests, suggestions, ideas, information, materials, etc..) will not be considered information or data of a confidential nature, it will not violate the rights of others and it will contain valid information, not damaging the rights of others and truth, in any case it cannot be attributed to the Centre any responsibility for the content of the messages themselves.
16.1. In accordance to art. 12 of Legislative Decree no. 70/2003, the Supplier shall inform the Purchaser that each order is stored in digital / paper copy at the headquarter of the Supplier according to criteria of confidentiality and security.
17.1. The communications in writing to the Supplier and any complaints will be considered valid only if sent to the following e-mail address info@officineitalianezard.it. The Purchaser shall indicate on the registration form his residence or domicile, telephone number, email address to which notices are to be sent by the Supplier.
18.1. All disputes arising from this contract will be referred to the Chamber of Commerce of Asti and resolved in accordance to the Conciliation Rules adopted by it.
18.2. If the Parties intend to appeal to an ordinary judicial authority, the competent court is the one of the place of residence or domicile chosen by the consumer, in accordance to the art. 33, paragraph 2, letter. u) of Legislative Decree no. 206/2005.
19.1. This contract is governed by Italian law.
19.2. Although it is not expressively provided, all rules of law linked to circumstances provided in this contract are applied, and in particular the art. 5 of the Rome Convention of 1980.
19.3. According to the art. 60 of Legislative Decree no. 206/2005, it is expressly herewith invoked the legislation contained in Part III, Title III, Chapter I of the Legislative Decree no. 206/2005.
This contract abrogates and replaces all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations, in writing or oral, previously intervened between the Parties concerning the subject of this contract.
Not available for your country.


The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) requires sellers of investment or business property to pay taxes on any gains realized from sales of such property. However, Section 1031 of the IRC (§1031) has provided an exception to the general rule by enabling what has become known as the "§1031 exchange." The §1031 exception involves the deferment of recognition of gains, and thus, the obligation to pay income or capital gains taxes on them if a seller reinvests proceeds in a similar property in a coinciding (within specific time limits), integrated transaction. But which similar properties qualify are limited to those that are deemed "like-kind" under §1031 and the relevant Treasury Regulations (See Treas. Reg. 1.1031 and its various subsections).
§1031 provides that to qualify as a "like-kind" property, both the property being sold and the property being purchased must be held for use in a trade or business or for investment and must not be: (i) inventory or stock in trade; (ii), stocks, bonds or notes; (iii) other securities or debt; (iv) partnership interests; or (v) certificates of trust. "Like-kind" refers to the nature or character of the property and not its grade or quality. All real estate will be like-kind to any other real estate. Thus, a parcel of vacant land can be like-kind to a commercial building. On the other hand, real estate will not be like-kind to personal property.
Most §1031 exchanges are done through a qualified intermediary, who is charged with holding the proceeds from the sale of the property being relinquished. The seller has no more than 45 days from the date of closing of the sale to identify a replacement, like-kind property for the exchange and has 180 days from the date of closing of the sale to close on the purchase the replacement to complete the exchange. These time limits are absolute and are not extended for holidays, weekends or anything short of a major disaster that prompts the government to grant special relief (such as after September 11, 2001).
Interestingly, personal property is also eligible for §1031 exchanges. However, the rules are much stricter as to what personal property is like-kind to other personal property, and such personal property must be in either the same general asset class or product class, according to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For example, motorcycles and ATVs would not be like-kind property, and cars and trucks would not be like-kind property despite the fact that all four of them are motor vehicles. Further, wrist watches and wall clocks would not be like-kind property, although they are both time-keeping devices, and cows and bulls are not like-kind property although they are both cattle. On the other hand, artwork of the same type can be exchanged for other artwork of the same type, but while a copyright of a novel may be exchanged for a copyright of another novel, it cannot be exchanged for a copyright of a song.
In his FY 2017 budget, President Obama has proposed to modify the like-kind exchange rules for all real and personal property and to exclude certain personal property from eligibility for §1031 exchanges. The proposal seeks to limit gains eligible for §1031 exchanges to $1,000,000 per taxpayer per year, which would limit the effects of the proposal on small businesses. Further, art and other collectibles would no longer be eligible for §1031 exchanges at all. The proposal grants the IRS rule-making authority to implement the proposals, including aggregating multiple properties exchanged by related parties, so that a series of under $1,000,000 gain exchanges by related parties would be disallowed under §1031 if they exceeded $1,000,000 of gain in the aggregate. The proposal would be effective for all §1031 exchanges completed after December 31, 2016.
These proposals may be prompted by a desire to increase tax revenue. It has been suggested that there is little justification for allowing the deferral of capital gains on the exchange of art or other collectibles, which do not significantly promote economic development. Also, when §1031 was enacted, valuing exchanged property was difficult, but now, with a large industry of qualified intermediaries handling the exchanges, most exchanges are handled on a deferred (within the 180-day requirement) basis, resulting in more exchanges than might have been originally contemplated. Moreover, §1031 can also be conducted in reverse, where the taxpayer purchases a replacement property first, and then has 180 days to sell its property to be relinquished. However, reverse §1031 exchanges are considerably more complex and expensive and require careful planning. Furthermore, a taxpayer may engage in repeated exchanges, indefinitely postponing recognition of the gain. If the taxpayer is an individual, the taxpayer’s estate is given a stepped up basis for appreciated property upon the taxpayer’s death, effectively forgiving all tax on the gain.
President Obama’s proposal, if approved, could severely dampen the pervasiveness of §1031 exchanges. It is unclear whether the government’s concerns are well-founded or whether §1031 exchanges have fueled investment, and thus, benefited the economy. In any event, if the reforms are passed, the widespread §1031 exchange market might change dramatically. If a taxpayer has initiated or contemplates a §1031 exchange, it may be advisable to conclude it before January 1, 2017, when these proposals, if enacted, would take effect. Investors contemplating a §1031 exchange or a significant investment real estate transaction should seek counsel experienced with tax deferred exchanges before entering into these transactions.


In Page v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District, 16-cv-4710, 2019 WL 764748, (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2019), the court, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim on the ground that plaintiff did not address that claim in his papers opposing the motion.
Here, defendants sought summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims, including those alleging that Defendants’ conduct created a hostile work environment. However, plaintiff’s opposition was limited to arguments regarding his race discrimination – as opposed to hostile work environment – claims under Title VII, § 1981, and the NYSHRL.
In [the Second] Circuit, “in the case of a counseled party, a court may, when appropriate, infer from a party’s partial opposition [to summary judgment] that relevant claims or defenses that are not defended have been abandoned.” Jackson v. Fed. Express., 766 F.3d 189, 198 (2d Cir. 2014); accord Kovaco v. Rockbestos-Surprenant Cable Corp., 834 F.3d 128, 143 (2d Cir. 2016) (hostile work environment claims deemed abandoned where plaintiff “fail[ed] to argue that they should survive [defendant’s] motion for summary judgment” while arguing against the motion as to his other claims); Grassel v. Dep’t of Educ. of City of N.Y., No. 12 CV 1016, 2015 WL 5657343, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2015) (“When a party opposing summary judgment fails to respond to the moving party’s argument on a claim, the Court may deem the claim abandoned”); Thomas v. Atl. Express Corp., No. 07 CIV.1978, 2009 WL 856993, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice where “[i]n his opposition, [the plaintiff] failed to respond to [defendant’s] argument that his due process claim should be dismissed, and therefore that claim is deemed abandoned”); Taylor v. City of New York, 269 F. Supp. 2d 68, 75 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (“Federal courts may deem a claim abandoned when a party moves for summary judgment on one ground and the party opposing summary judgment fails to address the argument in any way”).


Passing a Stopped School Bus § 46.2-859 Passing a stopped school bus can result in a reckless driving charge under Virginia law, which is considered a misdemeanor criminal offense.
Passing at a Railroad Grade Crossing § 46.2-858 Passing at a railroad grade crossing is a form of reckless driving under Virginia law. Learn what makes this a misdemeanor criminal offense.
Passing Two Vehicles Abreast § 46.2-856 Think twice when you're in slow moving traffic. Passing two vehicles at once can leave you with a reckless driving ticket under Virginia law.
View Obstructed or Control Impaired § 46.2-855 Driving while you can't see clearly out your windows or access vehicle controls is a form of reckless driving under Virginia law, even if you're not speeding.
Reckless Driving; General Rule § 46.2-852 Virginia Code § 46.2-852 acts as a catch-all for reckless driving behavior, giving officers significant discretion in making arrests.
Faulty Brakes § 46.2-853 Faulty brakes can result in a reckless driving ticket if you cause an accident that results in injury or property damage.
Failing to Give Proper Signals § 46.2-860 Failing to give proper signals indicating your intention to back, stop, or turn is a form of reckless driving under Virginia law.
Driving Two Abreast in a Single Lane Virginia Code § 46.2-857 Driving two vehicles abreast in a single lane is a form of reckless driving under Virginia law.
Reckless Driving Penalties In Virginia Reckless driving can be punished as either a misdemeanor or a felony under Virginia law, depending on the circumstances.