Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 4105/1996 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court ruled that removing items from a seized property without court order constitutes theft, not self-help defense.

Numero d'incarto KKO 4105/1996
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's claim of self-help defense regarding items removed from seized real estate. The court found that the defendant, A, had no legal right to remove personal property attached to the seized building without a judicial order. Consequently, the court determined the actions constituted theft rather than a valid self-help measure.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Section 2 of the Act on the Execution of Judgments; Section 2 of the Act on the Execution of Judgments: Unauthorized removal of property from seized premises without judicial authorization constitutes theft, not self-help defense.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
theft conviction self-help defense seized property judicial order requirement property attachment beni mobili possessore azione di manutenzione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Section 2 of the Act on the Execution of Judgments
Generato dall'IA
kko-other_2000_680
Spousal compensation claim for exclusive use of joint property after divorce dismissed due to lack of fault.
kko-precedent_1995_3
Supreme Court allows partial compensation for improvements made knowingly with unclear title but denies unjust enrichment claim.
kko-precedent_2003_9
Supreme Court allows prosecution for concealment crime despite victim's initial theft charge only.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2025:35
Supreme Court allows eviction of cohabitant from property where sole owner has mortgage and no legal right to stay.
appeal_1984_vaasa__2068
Court held that taking a spouse's property from a shared home constitutes theft, not embezzlement.

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

A oli luvatta hakenut pakkohuutokaupalla asianomistajalle siirtyneeltä kiinteistöltä ominaan pitämänsä kiinteistöön kiinnitetyt esineet. Kysymys siitä, oliko A syyllistynyt varkauteen vai omankädenoikeuteen.