In August 1994 Mrs AG appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden), requesting that her case be sent back to the National Immigration Board for new consideration

On 23 February 1995 the Social Welfare Board decided to revoke M.’s public care of its own motion because the services of his foster home were no longer available to the Board.

the board’s decisions.

    With regard to contact rights, the Board found that X needed time to bond with his foster parents, and that the foster placement would likely be long-term.

  Through the press and by several letters from Ö.S. to the Local Radio Board (närradionämnden), it had come to the knowledge of the Board that Ö.S. intended to broadcast commercial advertising over

  Pursuant to the Parole Board Rules 1992 which came into force on 1 October 1992, a prisoner is entitled to an oral hearing, to disclosure of all evidence before the Parole Board and to legal representation

Parole Board).         If the Parole Board decides not to recommend release, the Secretary of State has no power to do so.

Simultaneously, the administration and observation board of Gebze Prison (“the observation board”) examined the applicant’s request and ordered that the applicant be allowed to have physical contact with

    On an unknown date the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor ( Główny Lekarz Orzecznik ) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent

On his appeal to the County Administrative Court (läänin- oikeus, länsrätten) of Vaasa the Building Board's decision was quashed on 2 July 1991 and the matter referred back to the Board for new examination

The Board based its decision on the five publications referred to by company F. The decision was made by S and R, senior research engineers of the Board's Technical Office no. II.

    Represented by a new lawyer, the applicant appealed (via the Directorate) to the Immigration Appeals Board.

On 17 January 2000, on an appeal by the applicant, the Aliens Appeals Board ( Utlänningsnämnden ) quashed the Immigration Board’s decision of 12 September 1999 in so far as concerned the deportation order

        On 31 July 1990 the Housing Board informed the applicants of the Board's intention to exercise its right of pre-emption in case they sold the share.

In the Board’s view, assistance measures as an alternative to taking X into care had to be deemed inexpedient in terms of protecting him from further neglect, as the Board found it established that the

The applicants lodged an appeal with the Provincial Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat - "the Provincial Board").

had been noted in the minutes and signed by the board’s members.

The Board based its decision on the five publications referred to by company F. The decision was made by S and R, senior research engineers of the Board's Technical Office no. II.   21.

    The applicants complain that the proceedings of the Competition Board and those of the courts were not fair.