Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 1825/2011 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding High Court's procedural error in removing child support obligation entirely.

Numero d'incarto KKO 1825/2011
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 against the High Court's decision to remove all child support obligations from the father. The lower court had overturned a district court ruling that required the father to pay support, citing a change in circumstances. The Supreme Court found the High Court's procedural handling of the evidence and legal arguments insufficient to justify the total removal of the obligation.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Lapsilain 101. luku; 102. luku: The High Court's decision to entirely remove child support obligations without proper procedural justification is legally flawed and must be corrected.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
child support obligation High Court procedure family law appeal alimony removal Supreme Court review motivi di rigore domanda d'asilo di cittadino etiope diritto di ottenere una decisione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Lapsilain 101. luku
Lapsilain 102. luku
Generato dall'IA
kko-precedent_1995_79
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where lower court relied on new evidence without requesting defendant's response.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__766
Court upheld conviction for aggravated assault, rejecting reformatio in peius request despite new evidence of life-threatening injury.
kko-precedent_2011_30
Supreme Court remands appeal to High Court for retrial due to procedural error excluding defendant despite lawyer's presence.
kko-precedent_2002_107
Supreme Court allows defense lawyer fees when appeal challenges clear oral evidence in criminal case.
kko-precedent_1996_134
Supreme Court remands case for oral hearing due to conflicting testimonies and defendant's right to defense.

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

Käräjäoikeus oli määrännyt A:n ja B:n yhteisistä lapsista kolme asumaan A:n luona ja velvoittanut B:n suorittamaan heille elatusapua. B tyytyi päätökseen. A valitti hovioikeuteen vaatien muun muassa elatusavun korottamista. Hovioikeus muutti käräjäoikeuden päätöstä siten, ettei B:tä velvoitettu suorittamaan lainkaan elatusapua lapsille. Kysymys hovioikeuden menettelyn oikeellisuudesta.