Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 22.11.1991 1243/3 AI generated

Court dismissed welfare benefits claim for car expenses when vehicle was not used for work travel.

Case Number Hämeen LO 22.11.1991 1243/3
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's claim for welfare benefits covering car expenses. Although the applicant received disability service compensation for acquiring the vehicle, the court found the car was owned by a pensioner and not used for work-related travel. Consequently, the expenses did not meet the statutory requirements for welfare benefit reimbursement.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §; 31 §; 32 §: Expenses for a vehicle are not eligible for welfare benefits if the vehicle was not used for work-related travel, even if disability service compensation was granted for its acquisition.

Keywords

AI generated
welfare benefits vehicle expenses work travel requirement disability compensation pensioner status

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 31 §
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 32 §
Valtioneuvoston päätös toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista (1349/88) 3 §
Valtioneuvoston päätös toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista (1349/88) 3 §
AI generated
insurance_1980_6110-1979
Insurance court denies car purchase compensation for war veteran with severe injuries due to unreasonable circumstances.
kho-precedent_2005_21
Supreme Administrative Court allows disability aid for a second car when the existing vehicle meets needs and the applicant travels abroad.
kko-precedent_2002_19
Supreme Court holds that in debt arrangements, non-cash benefits reduce necessary living costs rather than being added to income.
insurance_2008_7005-2007
Student bus subsidy allowed when school commute becomes too difficult due to childcare obligations.
admin_1998_northern-karelia-county__44
Tax court ruled public transport is cheapest if it allows reasonable home time, overriding private car costs.

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

Henkilöauton käytöstä aiheutuneita menoja ei hyväksytty toimeentulotukeen oikeuttaviksi, vaikka auton hankkimiseksi oli myönnetty vammaispalvelulain mukaista korvausta. Auton omistaja oli eläkeläinen eikä autoa näin ollen käytetty työmatkoilla.

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 31 §

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 32 §

Valtioneuvoston päätös toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista (1349/88) 3 §