However, he added, a violation of Article 5 § 4 did not necessarily result in a violation of Article   5 § 1.

    On 19 December 2011, the Migration Board rejected the application.

There has accordingly been no violation of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 56.

Before the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ), they claimed, inter alia , the following.

COMPLAINT The applicant complained that his deportation to Zimbabwe would involve violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

    Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention 16.

The Board had omitted any reference to those visits. Contrary to the Board’s view the children had been developing well in the children’s home.

As regards the police report of 30 September 2003, the Board noted that it differed from a previous report of 10 December 2001 which had been submitted to the Migration Board.

    On 15 March 2001 the Unemployment Appeal Board rejected the appeal.

    County Social Welfare Board 17.

The applicant appealed against the decision to the National Labour Market Board (Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen) , which upheld it by decision of 2   June 2005.

If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in view of the constitutional prohibition on judicial review of the HSK’s decisions in these types of disputes?

On 6 May 2014 the Compensation Board ( Ersättningsnämnden ) refused his application.

The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board ( Utlänningsnämnden -hereinafter “the Board”), claiming that the situation in Tuzla was not such that they could return.

    The applicant complained that the mandatory nature of life imprisonment in Cyprus, coupled with the lack of a parole board, constituted a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 47.

At that stage therefore the Board which considered the case in September 1997 was functus officio .

On 17 April 2009 the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ) rejected the first applicant’s application for asylum.

    The applicant complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention on account of the Board’s decision not to hand over to him the five-volume

    On 17   July   2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board had asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required