Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 4105/1996 KI-generiert

Supreme Court ruled that removing items from a seized property without court order constitutes theft, not self-help defense.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 4105/1996
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's claim of self-help defense regarding items removed from seized real estate. The court found that the defendant, A, had no legal right to remove personal property attached to the seized building without a judicial order. Consequently, the court determined the actions constituted theft rather than a valid self-help measure.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Section 2 of the Act on the Execution of Judgments; Section 2 of the Act on the Execution of Judgments: Unauthorized removal of property from seized premises without judicial authorization constitutes theft, not self-help defense.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
theft conviction self-help defense seized property judicial order requirement property attachment Mobiliarvermögen Besitzer Besitzesstörungsklage

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Section 2 of the Act on the Execution of Judgments
KI-generiert
kko-other_2000_680
Spousal compensation claim for exclusive use of joint property after divorce dismissed due to lack of fault.
kko-precedent_1995_3
Supreme Court allows partial compensation for improvements made knowingly with unclear title but denies unjust enrichment claim.
kko-precedent_2003_9
Supreme Court allows prosecution for concealment crime despite victim's initial theft charge only.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2025:35
Supreme Court allows eviction of cohabitant from property where sole owner has mortgage and no legal right to stay.
appeal_1984_vaasa__2068
Court held that taking a spouse's property from a shared home constitutes theft, not embezzlement.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

A oli luvatta hakenut pakkohuutokaupalla asianomistajalle siirtyneeltä kiinteistöltä ominaan pitämänsä kiinteistöön kiinnitetyt esineet. Kysymys siitä, oliko A syyllistynyt varkauteen vai omankädenoikeuteen.