Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 2476/2010 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding defense lawyer's claim for travel expenses due to lack of court ruling.

Numero d'incarto KKO 2476/2010
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 lower court's procedural handling of a defense lawyer's claim for travel expenses. The Court of First Instance had not issued a ruling on the specific expense claim, leading the defense lawyer to question the legality of the proceedings. The Supreme Court determined that without a formal decision on the claim, the procedural defect did not justify overturning the main judgment.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Korkein oikeus 10.12.2009 2476/2010: Korkeimmassa oikeudessa on tarkasteltu, onko hovioikeuden menettely oikeellinen, kun puolustaja on vaatinut matkakuluja ja hovioikeus ei ole lausunut vaatimuksesta. Korkein oikeus on päättänyt, että menettely on ollut oikeellinen, koska puuttuva lausunto ei ole vaikuttanut oikeudenkäynnin lopputulokseen.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
defense lawyer expenses travel cost claim procedural defect Court of First Instance Supreme Court appeal lack of ruling procedural legality vizio di procedura
Generato dall'IA
appeal_1984_eastern-finland__2394
Appeal court allows state compensation for litigation costs when increasing damages in civil proceedings.
kko-other_2003_555
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when lower court relies on facts not raised in the permitted settlement case.
kko-other_2006_720
Supreme Court dismissed client's claim for increased damages due to changed trial circumstances without prior appeal.
kko-other_2013_2021
Supreme Court allows fee claim for defense counsel regarding unexplained dismissal of time-based costs by lower court.
kko-precedent_2003_108
Supreme Court held defendant liable for costs despite acquittal due to post-trial lighter law application.

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

Puolustaja oli hovioikeudessa vaatinut korvausta matka-ajalta ja matkakuluista. Hovioikeus ei ollut lausunut mitään vaatimuksesta. Kysymys hovioikeuden menettelyn oikeellisuudesta.