Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 476/1998 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court allows appeal against lower court for failing to hear respondent after Supreme Court ruling.

Numero d'incarto KKO 476/1998
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 allowed the appeal because the Court of First Instance failed to hear the respondent after a prior Supreme Court decision on the same shares. The respondent argued that requesting a written explanation was unnecessary given the existing precedent, while the lower court proceeded without consultation. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court's failure to consult the respondent constituted a procedural error warranting the appeal's success.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

KKO 26 luku 6 § 1 mom; The Supreme Court allows an appeal when a lower court fails to hear a party after a prior Supreme Court decision has resolved the same legal issue between different parties.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
share ownership rights procedural error failure to hear party prior Supreme Court decision appeal admissibility diritto a una copertura assicurativa più estesa principio della lex mitior clausola di rigore

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
KKO 26 luku 6 § 1 mom
Generato dall'IA
kko-other_1995_1214
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when lower court rejects claim on grounds not raised by respondent.
kko-other_2001_1617
Supreme Court dismissed appeal where lower court awarded price reduction instead of full restitution for property error.
kko-precedent_2014_81
Supreme Court dismisses fraud charge because appellate court convicted defendant of a different act than charged.
kko-precedent_1995_79
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where lower court relied on new evidence without requesting defendant's response.
kko-precedent_2011_103
Supreme Court quashes conviction for theft, ruling defendant was convicted of a different act than charged.

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

Hovioikeus otti asunto-osakkeiden murto-osan omistusoikeutta koskevassa asiassa vastaajaa kuulematta erityisestä syystä huomioon muutoksenhakijan määräajan jälkeen hovioikeudelle toimittaman Korkeimman oikeuden tuomion, jossa oli ratkaistu kysymys samojen osakkeiden toisen murto-osan omistusoikeudesta eri osapuolten kesken. Hovioikeus kumosi alioikeuden ratkaisun vastaajan vahingoksi pääosiltaan samoilla perusteilla kuin mitä Korkeimman oikeuden tuomiossa oli lausuttu.

Kysymys siitä, oliko kirjallisen selityksen pyytäminen ollut vastaajalta ilmeisen tarpeetonta.

OK 26 luku 6 § 1 mom