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

  With regard to their original parcels, which in their view were possible future building plots, the Land Reform Board found that these parcels did not directly border on a built-up area.

On 14 September 2000 the Aliens Appeals Board ( Utlänningsnämnden ), agreeing with the reasons given by the Migration Board, upheld the above decision.

.sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom

He therefore made an application to the Board for the Protection of Society at Antwerp Prison for his release. The Board heard the applicant on .. March 1969.

  However, it quashed the Provincial Board's decision insofar as the Board had refused to assume jurisdiction concerning the issues of alternative compensation parcels and monetary compensation.

By a decision dated 6 December 2000 (no. 123), the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board ( Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu –hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) decided to transfer the management

By a decision dated 6 December 2000 (no. 123), the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board ( Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu –hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) decided to transfer the management

Examining the submitted materials, the Disciplinary Board finds as follows. ...

The Board for Accident Compensation ( tapaturmalautakunta, olycksfallsnämnden ) rejected her appeal.

  An owner of land affected by a County Administrative Board decision approving a building plan has a right of appeal against the Board's decision to the Government.

[Z] faisait valoir qu'il ressortait de l'acte de propriété produit datant de 1921, auquel se réfère les actes postérieurs que « la présente vente comprend la moitié du sol de l'allée commune qui la borde

On 26 June 2015, after having held a meeting, the Board upheld it. The Board found that B had extraordinary needs, requiring more or less continuous assistance.

    On 25 October 1991 the County Administrative Board revoked the Building Committee's decision. However, the Board did not base its decision on the merits of the case.

In his appeal, which became pending before the Accident Board on 26 July 2000, he requested compensation for total incapacity for work. On 28 May 2002 the Board held an oral hearing.

On appeal, the decision was upheld by the Immigration Appeals Board on 2 March 2007. 14.

On 17 October 2011, the Migration Board rejected the application.

The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board ( Utlännings-nämnden ).

On 20 September 2017 the County Social Welfare Board ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) decided that the applicant should not be allowed contact with his children, including contact by telephone