The case is now pending again before the Independent Administrative Board for Lower Austria.

  The Board continued that if the Board's legal director was of the opinion that further representations did not disclose sufficient information to justify the matter being put before the Board again

  The Provincial Board decided the appeals on 19 December 1989.

commet une faute d'imprudence à l'origine de son dommage la victime qui a chuté du haut d'une falaise de six mètres de haut pendant qu'elle circulait sur un étroit passage de 50 centimètres de large, bordé

[G] en qualité de commandant de bord par contrat de travail du 28 janvier 2020 et irrésistible dans son exécution caractérisant un évènement de force majeure permettant à l'employeur de s'exonérer de tout

On 9 September 1997, the applicant’s case was reviewed by the Parole Board, which at that time had only the power to recommend release under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

On 17 April 2009 the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ) rejected the first applicant’s application for asylum.

The Board’s reasoning continued: “The Board has also noted that in the [applicant]’s reply to the Netherlands authorities when asked whether he had ever been abroad before fleeing the country, he stated

His application was rejected by the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ) on 23 June 2008 and by the Migration Court ( Migrationsdomstolen ) on 22 December 2008.

showing effectiveness of the Data Inspection Board in practice.

.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

The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board ( Utlänningsnämnden -hereinafter “the Board”), claiming that the situation in Tuzla was not such that they could return.

le chemin peuvent être considérés comme riverains ; que (...) le chemin rural litigieux (...) longe sur la totalité de son bord ouest la parcelle D... n° [...] et sur toute la longueur de son bord est

The applicant filed a reply with the Board on 29 March 1993.

As regards the police report of 30 September 2003, the Board noted that it differed from a previous report of 10 December 2001 which had been submitted to the Migration Board.

  On 26 November 1993 the National Board requested that the Regional Board properly investigate the applicant's complaints, and commented unfavourably on the Regional Board's inability to proceed

In March 1995 the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk) dismissed the applicant's request.

    By a decision dated 18 June 2002 (no. 742), the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board (Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu - hereinafter “the Board”) revoked Pamukbank’s licence to

civilement responsable de ses préposés ; "aux motifs qu'à supposer même que la victime ait fait preuve d'imprudence, d'inattention dans l'exécution de sa tache en s'approchant de "façon excessive" du bord