Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 342/2022 KI-generiert

Supreme Court allows guardian removal when special cause exists under guardianship law Section 16.1.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 342/2022
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court of Finland allowed the removal of a long-term guardian for a developmentally disabled brother, appointing a general guardian in his place. The guardian authority requested the change, arguing that a special cause existed under the Guardianship Act. The court ruled that the circumstances met the statutory requirement for removal, validating the authority's decision.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Section 16(1) of the Guardianship Act; A special cause for removing a guardian exists when the guardian's continued service is no longer in the ward's best interest or when the ward's condition has changed significantly.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Guardianship Act removal of guardian special cause developmental disability general guardian best interest principle Supreme Court of Finland Veränderung der Lage im Herkunftsland

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Section 16(1) of the Guardianship Act
KI-generiert
kko-precedent_2005_2
Supreme Court dismisses guardianship declaration due to lack of proven danger to assets from inactivity.
insurance_2019_3826-2018
Social security appeals board dismissed appeal as payment recipient determination falls outside its jurisdiction.
appeal_1981_eastern-finland__65
Court upheld guardianship decision against appeal, citing lack of need for public notice.
kho-precedent_1999_70
Supreme Administrative Court ruled that dismissing a pregnant teacher due to short-term availability constituted unlawful sex discrimination under Finnish equality law.
admin_1992_water-superior__88
Court rules that only the water regulation permit holder bears liability for damages caused by regulation operations.

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 hoitanut usean vuosikymmenen ajan kehitysvammaista veljeään B:tä ja toiminut tämän edunvalvojana. Holhousviranomainen pyysi hakemuksessaan, että A vapautetaan edunvalvojan tehtävästä ja että yleinen edunvalvoja määrätään B:n uudeksi edunvalvojaksi.

Kysymys siitä, oliko A:n vapauttamiseen edunvalvojan tehtävästä holhoustoimesta annetun lain 16 §:n 1 momentissa tarkoitettu erityinen syy.