Under the law applicable at the time, it was not possible to file an appeal from such a decision.

On 6 October 2000, upon appeal, the Borgarting Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The Court also added that an application under article 16 (3) MAL is not an appeal against the decision of the tribunal.

The decision of the enforcement branch shall stand pending the decision on appeal.

The applicant did not appeal against this decision.

The CBC appealed the decision, but later abandoned the appeal.

Under Greek law, there are no grounds for a further appeal seeking leave that such a procedural flaw be remedied and thus the decision is effectively final.

On appeal, the Frankfurt Court of Appeal quashed that decision and referred the matter back to the Frankfurt Regional Court.

The Court of Appeal based its decision on the following grounds.

9 Decision on Joseph Nzabirinda's Notice of Appeal , 28 January 2005.

10 Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Temporal Jurisdiction , 29 July 2004.

The Court of Appeal of Quebec rejected the appeal against the conviction and the Supreme Court of Canada refused the application for leave to appeal against this decision.

On 18 October 2002, the Central District Court of Minsk rejected the authors' appeal against the C.R.N. 's decision on the same grounds this decision was in turn affirmed on appeal.

4.2 The State party notes that such an appeal could have been lodged as soon as the decision had been notified the decision contained an indication of the appeal procedure and deadlines.

The Prosecutor's decision contained no indication of a possibility of further appeal.

Mr. Rindal did not appeal the District Court's decision in his case.

The decision contained instructions on how to appeal to the Supreme Court.

On 2 September 2002, the Appeal Aliens Board upheld the Migration Board's decision.

According to the State party, no cassation appeal was introduced against this decision.

He claims that he was denied the right to appeal from this decision.

The decision adds that the appeal hearing was held on 3 June 1996.

3 Decision on Mugiraneza's Interlocutory Appeal against the Decision of the Trial Chamber on Exclusion of Evidence , 15 July 2004.

2.4 The authors filed an appeal for unification of doctrine with the Supreme Court, which was rejected on 13 January 1998 on the grounds that the decision in question was not identical to the one with which it was being contrasted under the appeal.

The Court also noted that an application under article 34 MAL is not a process designed for purposes of seeking review of a pre existing judicial decision by way of appeal.

8 Decision on Pauline Nyiramasuhuko's Appeal on the Admissibility of Evidence , 4 October 2004.

The Appeals Chamber held that the impugned decision was without interlocutory appeal and that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Appellant's Notice of Appeal.9

The Government appealed this decision, invoking a regulation that unilaterally stayed the immigration judge's bond decision until final resolution of the appeal.

Under article 40(4) of the UNCC Provisional Rules for Claims Procedure, the Governing Council's decision is final and is not subject to appeal or review on procedural, substantive or other grounds.

On 17 March 2004, the State party informed the Committee that, by decision of 17 February 2004, the Board of Appeal dismissed the author's application for leave to appeal against the High Court's decision of 1 December 2003.

The decision of the Supreme Court is final and there is no possibility of appeal.

On 7 March 2001, the Federal Court dismissed an appeal against the decision of RRT.

2.5 In its decision of 29 September 1998, the Constitutional Court declared the appeal inadmissible.

In its decision of 3 June 2002, the Aliens Appeals Board concluded that the evidentiary standard to be applied by it in deciding the complainant's appeal under the Aliens Act corresponded to that established by the Committee under article 3 of the Convention.

On 16 August 2001, the Full Federal Court dismissed an appeal against the Federal Court's decision.

The author's appeal to the Danish Refugee Board and his application to the Board of Appeal for leave to appeal the High Court's decision of 1 December 2003, were still pending when the State party made its submission.

Moreover, the appeal could have been accompanied by an application for a stay of execution and a request for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of the decision under article L.10 of the Code of Administrative Courts and Administrative Courts of Appeal, which was in force at that time.

2.16 On 17 March 2004, the Board of Appeal rejected Mr. Warming's application for leave to appeal the Grindsted District Court's decision to the High Court of Western Denmark.

On 15 July 2004, the Appeals Chamber rendered a decision on Mugiraneza's appeal against the decision of the Trial Chamber on exclusion of evidence by directing the Trial Chamber to reconsider Mugiraneza's request.3 The Appeals Chamber also dismissed the Prosecutor's counter appeal.

It is important to point out that the appeal against such decision does not postpone the execution.

An appeal in respect of such a decision may not be submitted to the Joint Appeals Board.

He adds that the Criminal Code does not provide for a right of appeal against that decision.

Mr. Marynich appealed this decision to the Minsk Prosecutor, who rejected the appeal on 20 August 2004.

71 1967 on administrative proceedings and that it was not possible to appeal against a non existent decision.

He then filed an appeal in the Prague Town Court, which quashed this decision on 5 May 2004.

On 24 June 1998, she lodged an appeal against the Torun District Court's decision of 5 February 1998.