Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 44/2022 KI-generiert

Supreme Court dismisses appeal for late objection to conviction due to missing information claim.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 44/2022
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court of Finland decided to leave the appeal regarding the rejection of a late objection to a conviction without examination. The appellant argued they could not object within the five-year statutory limit because they were unaware of the conviction earlier. The court determined that the appellant's claim of ignorance did not justify extending the strict time limit for filing the objection.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Laki rikosilmoittamisesta 100/1997; Laki rikosilmoittamisesta 100/1997: The statutory time limit for filing an objection to a conviction is mandatory and cannot be extended based on a claim of ignorance regarding the conviction.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
statutory time limit objection to conviction late objection ignorance defense criminal procedure law Supreme Court ruling procedural deadline ungenügende Substantiierung von Grundrechtsverletzungen

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Laki rikosilmoittamisesta 100/1997
KI-generiert
kko-other_2005_4
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against refusal to file complaint when time limit expired.
kko-other_1999_2183
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding interpretation of objection notice when lower court procedure was erroneous.
appeal_1982_rovaniemi__568
Failure to submit written appeal instructions within the statutory deadline results in dismissal of the appeal.
kko-precedent_1998_50
Supreme Court restores time limit for debt arrangement objection when client's lawyer missed notification due to client's illness.
kko-precedent_1993_122
Supreme Court restored limitation period for objection due to court's erroneous phone response and timely re-submission.

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 ilmoitti tyytymättömyyttä yli viisi vuotta tyytymättömyyden ilmoittamiselle säädetyn määräajan jälkeen vedoten siihen, ettei hän ollut saanut tietoa tuomiosta aiemmin. Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisusta ilmenevillä perusteilla katsottiin, että tyytymättömyyden ilmoittamisen hylkäämistä koskeva kantelu olisi pitänyt jättää tutkimatta.