Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 218/2006 KI-generiert

Supreme Court dismisses company's execution claim for ownership of seized assets due to procedural delay.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 218/2006
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court dismissed the company's execution claim because the lower court failed to examine the appeal due to late filing. The company argued ownership of seized assets without providing evidence, while the opposing party contested the lack of proof. The court ruled that the procedural defect precluded the examination of the substantive ownership question.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Execution Act s. 10; Execution Act s. 11: A court must examine an execution claim even if filed late, but failure to do so due to procedural error results in dismissal of the claim.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
execution claim ownership dispute procedural delay seized assets lower court error Wiederaufleben der Invalidenrente Gültigkeit der Forderungszession gesetzliches Erbrecht

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Execution Act s. 10
Execution Act s. 11
KI-generiert
kko-other_2007_1209
Supreme Court held that a final enforcement judgment in a separate debt collection case is binding in a new debt collection proceeding.
kko-precedent_1989_41
Supreme Court extends filing deadline for third-party ownership claim in enforcement proceedings to start from its own decision date.
kko-precedent_2003_132
Final ruling in one enforcement proceeding does not bind a third party in a separate enforcement proceeding regarding the same property.
kho-precedent_2004_56
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses legal aid office's appeal as it lacks standing under administrative procedure law.
kko-precedent_2002_94
Supreme Court dismisses request to extend deadline for challenging a partition deed under procedural law.

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

Yhtiö oli valittanut ulosmittauksesta sillä perusteella, että se omisti velallisen veloista ulosmitatun omaisuuden. Käräjäoikeus oli jättänyt valituksen myöhään saapuneena tutkimatta. Tämän jälkeen yhtiö nosti ilman osoitusta täytäntöönpanoriitakanteen, jossa se muun ohella vaati vahvistettavaksi, että se omistaa ulosmitatun omaisuuden. Kysymys siitä, voitiinko kanne tutkia.