The decision of the Faculty Board not to consider his application had therefore amounted to interference with his right to freedom of expression.

The applicant appealed to the Housing Benefit Review Board (“the Review Board”).

the Board. 3.

    On 7 June 2018 the Disciplinary Board of the prison (“the Disciplinary Board” or “the Board”) found that the letter contained objectionable ( sakıncalı ) content.

The Board’s decision was immediately enforceable.

made by the Board at the same occasion.

The court upheld the Accident Board’s decision, giving the following reasons: “The reasons are mentioned in the Accident Board’s decision.

Given the Child Welfare Board’s own lack of psychiatric expertise and the fact that the Münchhausen by proxy syndrome is difficult to diagnose, the use which the Child Welfare Board made of a variety of

On 10 September 2009 the Migration Board rejected the asylum application. The Board held that documents submitted by the applicants were copies of poor quality that did not substantiate their claims.

    On 17 February 1994 the Appellate Board for Social Insurance (tarkastuslautakunta, prövningsnämnden ; “the Appellate Board”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, maintaining that in the light

    On 25 March 1997 the Appellate Board for Social Insurance rejected the applicant’s appeals against the Social Insurance Board’s decisions of 4 July and 16 September 1996 by relying on the

The Board rejected his request for conscientious-objector status and the Minister of Defence likewise.

The Disciplinary Board’s decision of 30 March 1998 reads: “The Disciplinary Board of the Finnish Bar Association has examined a complaint made by J. to the Board of Directors concerning attorney A and

The applicant then asked for reconsideration of his case before the Migration Board and asked the Board to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order.

The Board did not grant contact rights with respect to the third and fourth applicants.

The Accident Board rejected his appeal on 13 March 1997 by four votes to one.

He was also requested to inform the Board of the outcome of such proceedings if he wished to continue the examination of his appeal before the Board.

The applicant had challenged the July 1994 decision of the Parole Board on the basis, inter alia, that the Parole Board applied the wrong test and on the basis of the Parole Board's extra- statutory confirmation

  However, on 1 October 1975 a request for a retrial was granted by the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat - "the Supreme Board").