Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 3235/1998 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding procedural error in debt collection notice sent to minor.

Numero d'incarto KKO 3235/1998
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the validity of a debt collection notice sent to a minor. The notice was delivered on October 14, 1992, when the recipient was 17 years old, granting six days to object before turning 18. The court ruled that no procedural error occurred because the recipient had the full capacity to act upon the notice once they reached majority age.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Section 10 of the Debt Collection Act; The delivery of a debt collection notice to a minor does not constitute a procedural error if the recipient attains majority age before the objection period expires.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
debt collection notice minor capacity procedural error objection period majority age civil procedure Supreme Court tardivo pagamento delle spese

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Section 10 of the Debt Collection Act
Generato dall'IA
kko-precedent_1993_122
Supreme Court restored limitation period for objection due to court's erroneous phone response and timely re-submission.
admin_1993_water-superior__83
Administrative court dismissed appeal by extending limitation period due to delayed notification of water authority decision.
kko-other_1999_2183
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding interpretation of objection notice when lower court procedure was erroneous.
kko-precedent_1996_123
Supreme Court allows time bar extension for breach of contract claim due to arbitrator bias evidence discovered late.
kko-precedent_1998_50
Supreme Court restores time limit for debt arrangement objection when client's lawyer missed notification due to client's illness.

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

Maksamismääräyksen antamista tarkoittavaa hakemusta koskeva ilmoitus oli annettu A:lle tiedoksi 14.10.1992, jolloin A oli ollut vielä 17-vuotias. Ilmoituksen mukaan velallisella oli ollut kuusi päivää aikaa vastustaa maksamismääräyksen antamista. A oli tullut täysiikäiseksi 17.10.1992. Kysymys siitä, oliko maksamismääräystä annettaessa tapahtunut oikeudenkäyntivirhe.