Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 9.11.1990 1011/III AI generated

Small business owner's vacation pay claim allowed due to landlord-induced business closure preventing work.

Case Number Hämeen LO 9.11.1990 1011/III
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of the County of Hämeenlinna allowed a small business owner's claim for annual vacation pay after the Technical Board rejected it. The applicant argued that his business closure, caused by the landlord's renovation, prevented him from working for the required 14 days in the preceding year. The court ruled that this external obstacle constituted a valid reason under the Annual Vacation Pay Act, thereby overturning the lower decision and remanding the case.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vuosilomalain 3 § 5 momentin 11 kohta; If a small business owner is prevented from working by reasons independent of their will, such as a business closure due to a landlord's renovation, the annual vacation pay claim is granted.

Keywords

AI generated
small business owner annual vacation pay landlord induced closure independent reason business interruption vacation pay claim administrative review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Vuosilomalain 3 § 5 momentin 11 kohta
Vuosilomalain 1 §
AI generated
admin_1991_lapland-county__1186
Administrative court remands case for new hearing due to missing opportunity for additional evidence submission.
kho-other_2017_5787
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal, upholding stricter environmental storage rules for small power plants over permit terms.
admin_1995_turku-and-pori-county__250
Administrative court dismissed appeal; building inspector's prior role in same case created bias but no remand required.
labour_2023_19
Labor court allows sick pay and fine for employer violating collective agreement on vacation transfer.
admin_2010_kouvola__294
Administrative court dismissed subdivision permit application as it falls under land formation law, not building act exceptions.

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

A oli hakenut pienyrittäjän vuosilomarahaa lomakaudelle 1.4.1990 - 31.3.1991. Tekninen lautakunta oli hylännyt hakemuksen, koska A ei ollut harjoittanut yritystoimintaa edellisen kalenterivuoden aikana vähintään 14 päivänä kuukaudessa. Yritystoiminta oli liikkeen sulkemisen johdosta ollut keskeytyneenä ajan 1.1.-12.2.1989. Liikkeen sulkeminen oli johtunut vuokranantajan suorittamasta remontista.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että A oli mainittuna aikana ollut hänestä riippumattomasta syystä estynyt työskentelemästä sellaisesta syystä, joka on verrattavissa vuosilomalain 3 §:n 5 momentin 11 kohdassa tarkoitettuun syyhyn. Lääninoikeus kumosi teknisen lautakunnan päätöksen ja palautti asian sille uudelleen käsiteltäväksi.

Äänestys 2-1.

L pienyrittäjän vuosilomarahasta 3 § 1 mom 1 kohta

A pienyrittäjän vuosilomarahasta 1 §

VuosilomaL 3 § 5 mom 11 kohta