only examine the lawfulness of the Board's decision.

Belgium - 13839/88 Judgment 22.9.1994 Article 6 Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Impartiality of members of the French-language Appeals Board of the Ordre des médecins: no violation

    On 20 October 1997 the Legal Aid Board upheld the National Immigration Board’s decision not to award the applicant public legal counsel.

Therefore the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that respect. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

The applicant contested the two officials' right to act on the Social Welfare Board's behalf and repeated his request on 9 March 1994, demanding that the matter be placed before the Board itself.

the proceedings before the Regional Land Reform Board.

Board (“the Panel”).

In light of the resultant opinion the National Board of Medico-Legal Affairs ( terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården ; “the Medico-Legal Board”), in March 1996, ordered

(la société Boccara) a conclu avec la société Promodata un contrat de location de divers matériels informatiques ; que la société Boccara a assigné la société Promodata en résolution de leur contrat pour

  The board concluded that the applicant's methods of treatment were uneconomical.

The opinion of the County Agricultural Board was received at the County Administrative Board on 14 May 1990.

    The Pension Board applies written procedure.

The board upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s decision finding the applicant’s grounds for appeal unfounded. The board also dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification.

Therefore, the Pension Board finds [the applicant] still partly capable of working as from 1   June   1997.”

and to its arbitration board.

and to its arbitration board.

    The applicant alleged that the proceedings before the Gaming Board Panel were in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 4.

Therefore the Supreme Board had violated the applicant’s right to be heard.

However, the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ) noted that the applicant had previously applied for asylum in Italy.