Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Mikkelin LO 7.2.1989 115 AI generated

Continuing maintenance allowance denied for housing loan interest as it exceeds necessary living expenses.

Case Number Mikkelin LO 7.2.1989 115
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The applicant requested continuous maintenance allowance to cover housing loan interest, arguing that their pension income only allowed for principal repayments. The County Administrative Court held that such interest constitutes an unreasonable expense relative to available income and is not a necessary living cost. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim, ruling that the applicant could meet their needs from their own earnings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §; Maintenance allowance is granted only for necessary living expenses and does not cover housing loan interest deemed unreasonable compared to available income.

Keywords

AI generated
maintenance allowance housing loan interest necessary living expenses unreasonable expense social security law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §
AI generated
admin_1998_turku-and-pori-county__262
Administrative court dismissed appeal regarding nursing home fees excluding property costs from income deductions.
kko-precedent_2001_23
Supreme Court allows debt arrangement costs for cohabitant's mortgage only if actual contribution or necessity is proven.
kko-precedent_2010_37
Supreme Court allows child support despite father's low net income due to high housing costs.
admin_1995_mikkeli-county__858
Spousal housing allowance correctly excluded from patient fee calculation under social services fee act.
admin_1993_northern-karelia-county__727
Administrative court allows social assistance to cover property tax as necessary housing cost.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Valittaja vaati jatkuvan toimeentulotuen myöntämistä asuntolainan

korkoihin, koska valittaja ja hänen kanssaan yhteistaloudessa

asuvat lapset pystyvät maksamaan eläketuloistaan

vain asuntolainan lyhennykset.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että toimeentulotukea voidaan myöntää

vain välttämättömiin asumismenoihin, jollaisina ei voida pitää

käytettävissä oleviin tuloihin nähden kohtuuttoman kalliin

asunnon hankkimisesta aiheutuneita korkomenoja. Valittajan

katsottiin kyenneen maksamaan tarpeen mukaisesta toimeentulostaan

johtuneet menonsa omista tuloistaan, joten hän

ei ollut toimeentulotuen tarpeessa.

SosiaalihuoltoL 30 §