ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 48.

  The applicant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board ( Utlänningsnämnden ).

  The Provincial Board decided the appeals on 19 December 1989.

He is represented before the Court by Mr Stefan Zebrowski, a guardian appointed by the Swedish Chief Guardians Board ( Överförmyndarkontoret ).

    the Accident Board and the Insurance Court failed to communicate to him several documents which the insurance company had submitted to the Accident Board; 3.

“the Board”) for a permanent public care order and requested that A. should be placed in a secret foster home and that the applicant should not be granted contact rights.

     The applicants appealed to the Board of Transport arguing inter alia that the County Administrative Board's decision was not based on convincing reasons and that the decision was

The authority of the Refugee Appeals Board is restricted to deciding asylum-relevant issues, and it is thus outside the Board's authority to determine whether an alien who does not meet the conditions

On 24 February 2004 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected the appeal, sharing the Migration Board’s reasoning and conclusion.

Further, the Board found the asylum story vague and lacking in detail.

Parole Board, ex parte Bradley (Divisional Court) [1991] 1 WLR 135; R. v. Parole Board ex parte Wilson (Court of Appeal) [1992] 2 AER 576). In R. v.

The Accident Board rejected the appeal on 13 March 1997.

Parole Board, ex parte Bradley (Divisional Court) [1991] 1 WLR135; R. v. Parole Board ex parte Wilson (Court of Appeal) [1992] 2 AllER576). C.     Recent developments 17.

; Sur la responsabilité délictuelle de la société Boccard à l'égard de la société Dufour ; que la société Dufour recherche la responsabilite de la société Boccard du fait des dommages causés par son

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

    On an unspecified date in 1999, the General Directorate of National Water Board (“the Board”) decided to expropriate the applicant’s land. 6.

The applicant filed a reply with the Board on 29 March 1993.

The Board did not find any reason to come to a different conclusion.

boards of regional courts.

The School Board regularly controlled the education given by the applicants and found it satisfactory.