On 1 February 1993 their asylum requests were rejected by the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk).

  By letter of 24 August 1988 the Staff of the Military District of Helsinki (Helsingin sotilaspiirin esikunta, staben för Helsingfors militär- distrikt) confirmed his exemption and informed him of

As regards residents of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba who have resided in the Netherlands for a period of less than ten years, it cannot be held that the legislature could not reasonably have decided

    The applicant ’ s asylum request was transmitted to the National Immigration Board ( Statens invandrarverk ) for examination.

       Accordingly, the application cannot be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

In the Government’s view the period to be assessed under Article 6 of the Convention cannot therefore start to run prior to those dates.

Thus, the decision to disregard it because the applicant did not have an identification document appears unfounded, especially in view of the fact that he had reported his passport stolen earlier that

He had reported only on 3 November 1995 that it had been mislaid or stolen in September of that year.

        On 6 September 1991 the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) rejected the request and ordered the applicant's expulsion.

In the case of Stefan Iliev v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S.

    The Court cannot, however, agree with the applicant’s arguments.

        Despite doubts concerning the applicant's true identity, the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk), on 15 January 1992, granted him a permanent residence

On 12 June 1998 the applicant's accounting records for the 1996 and 1997 fiscal years were stolen.

Its unlawfulness also stemmed from the fact that the applicant had, in breach of the applicable regulations, been subjected to the psychological assessment while on sick leave.

  Subsequently, an opinion of the National Laboratory of Forensic Science (statens kriminaltekniska laboratorium) to that regard was submitted to the Court of Appeal.

  41     In the present case, it seems clear that M. cannot be S.'s father and it appears that he is not even aware of S.'s existence.

Steen, Attorney General's Office (Civil Matters). 3.

If consensus cannot be reached, the Chairman should undertake such further consultations as may facilitate agreement.

    The applicants have incurred no costs personally and thus cannot claim their reimbursement to them under Article 41 of the Convention.