Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 1238/2007 KI-generiert

Supreme Court dismisses appeal against seizure of car deemed client's property due to procedural execution errors.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 1238/2007
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the enforcement of a seizure order targeting a vehicle identified as the appellant's property. The lower court had executed the seizure based on registration data and other investigations, while the appellant argued the vehicle belonged to him. The court upheld the decision because the procedural execution followed the necessary steps despite the underlying ownership dispute.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Section 10 of the Enforcement Act; Section 11 of the Enforcement Act: The court may order the enforcement of a security measure if the measure has been properly executed according to the law, even if the underlying ownership claim is disputed.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
enforcement security measure vehicle seizure procedure ownership dispute enforcement lower court execution supreme court review Motorfahrzeughalter nicht betriebssicheres Fahrzeug Verletzung der Verkehrsregeln

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Section 10 of the Enforcement Act
Section 11 of the Enforcement Act
KI-generiert
ECLI:FI:KHO:2018:127
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses vehicle tax liability against employee who drove leased foreign car for employer.
appeal_1980_vaasa__1413
Court dismissed charge of handing over vehicle to drunk driver as defendant knew owner would drive drunk.
kko-precedent_1990_132
Supreme Court dismisses state liability claim where plaintiff voluntarily paid fees unrelated to the customs office's error causing the loss.
kko-precedent_1999_93
Supreme Court allows claim against insurer where owner caused death by grossly negligent encouragement of speeding.
kko-precedent_2001_122
Supreme Court dismisses claim that assets bought by sole director belong to dormant company.

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

Käräjäoikeuden määräämä vakuustakavarikko oli pantu täytäntöön siten, että A:n omaisuudeksi katsottu auto oli takavarikoitu. B vaati ulosottovalituksella turvaamistoimenpiteen kumoamista, koska auto rekisteritietojen ja muun selvityksen perusteella kuului hänelle. Kysymys täytäntöönpanoriitaohjauksesta.