As to the administrative stage of the proceedings before the Faculty Board, the Court noted that, when it decided not to consider the applicant’s candidacy, the Board had not informed the latter (nor indeed

  The revocation of the applicant’s life licence was confirmed by the Parole Board on 28   April 1995.

Z... fait grief à l'arrêt, d'avoir rejeté son recours, alors que selon le moyen, s'il est bien exact que le défaut de production du livre de bord litigieux avait été sans incidence en ce qui concerne la

Because there is no attempt, in the Board’s view, to explore the meaning of the imagery beyond engaging the viewer in a voyeuristic erotic experience, the Board considers that the public distribution of

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

relative à une saisine présentée par la SARL Bijouterie 6 Paradis, enseigne Joaillerie Bornand

Contrary to the above information however the applicant received, on 12 June 1998, a copy of the Disciplinary Board’s decision, stating that the Board had decided on 30   March 1998 to give him a

  On 25 January 1999 the applicant applied to the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court to have the decisions of the Faculty Board and the ecclesiastical authority set aside.

    On 20 May 2008 the Municipal Board dismissed the applicants’ appeal.

The court found that Ms S.T. and her representative had both been informed orally before the Board’s meeting that the written notice had been incorrect and that the Board would consider the matter on 29

to comply with its constitutional duties through the Board.

[O], entre le bord de la chaussée et une ligne continue au visa de l'article R. 417-10, II, 3°, du code de la route. 3.

après en avoir délibéré conformément à la loi ; Attendu, selon l'arrêt attaqué (Lyon, 10 mai 2000), que Jean-Pierre Y... et Rémy Z... ont effectué un vol de jour, d'Ambérieu-en-Bugey à Mionnay, à bord

The Board rejected the request and, upon appeal, the Migration Court upheld the Board’s decision in full. On 27 October 2009, the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. 9.

The care plan was considered to have entailed an access restriction and the matter was referred back to the Board.

     The applicants then appealed to the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat - "the Supreme Board").

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

qu'elle employait, "n'étaient pas valables" au motif que "le commandant de bord n'avait pas qualité pour recevoir les significations au nom du propriétaire de l'aéronef", quand le commandant de bord de

"Afin d'obtenir la certification du RINA, des modules de formation spécifiques pour les équipages ont été créés dans le strict respect des nouveaux protocoles sanitaires et du système de gestion de bord