Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 2869/1995 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court remands appeal for retrial because lower court ignored defendant's lack of participation and benefit arguments.

Numero d'incarto KKO 2869/1995
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Parzialmente accolto (Partially Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for a new trial. Defendants A and B argued they were not liable because they did not participate in or benefit from the legal actions taken in the name of the deceased estate. The lower court had accepted the appeal but failed to address these specific defenses, leading the Supreme Court to order a retrial.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Laws of Finland, Chapter 10 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; The court must address all substantive defenses raised by the parties; failure to consider a defendant's lack of participation or benefit constitutes a ground for remand.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
deceased estate legal actions liability defense lack of participation retrial order Code of Judicial Procedure Supreme Court credito contestato

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Chapter 10 of the Code of Judicial Procedure
Generato dall'IA
kko-other_1998_1535
Supreme Court remands bankruptcy trustee's return of property claim for failure to address all grounds.
kko-precedent_1997_132
Supreme Court remands case to lower court for review under bankruptcy recovery Act section 10.
kko-other_2019_638
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where lower court wrongly denied further proceedings permission due to factual error.
kko-other_1997_1797
Supreme Court allows appeal against High Court's failure to examine secondary claim after procedural error.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2018:68
Supreme Court allows settlement on legal costs despite legal aid, as it wasn't solely to avoid state liability.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Vastaajat A ja B olivat takaisinsaantia konkurssipesään koskevassa asiassa vedonneet siihen, etteivät he olleet osallistuneet kanteessa tarkoitettuihin, kuolinpesän nimissä tehdyiksi väitettyihin oikeustoimiin eivätkä saaneet niistä hyötyä. Kun kihlakunnanoikeus oli hylännyt kanteen, A:lla ja B:llä ei ollut hovioikeudessa ollut syytä kiinnittää huomiota erityisesti näihin seikkoihin. Hovioikeus, joka oli hyväksynyt kanteen, ei ollut lausunut mainituista väitteistä. A ja B olivat Korkeimmassa oikeudessa valituksessaan vedonneet nimenomaisesti siihen, etteivät he mainituista syistä olleet vastuussa kanteen tarkoittamista toimista. Asia palautettiin hovioikeuteen uudelleen käsiteltäväksi.