Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Keski-Suomen LO 8.10.1992 892 AI generated

Court dismissed parking ticket where snow covered mandatory parking sign, ruling driver still liable for non-compliance.

Case Number Keski-Suomen LO 8.10.1992 892
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 appeal against a parking fine issued to the defendant for failing to use a required parking circle. Although the defendant argued that a snow-covered traffic sign temporarily exempted them from the obligation, the court found that the sign's visibility did not negate the legal requirement to use the circle. Consequently, the court held the defendant liable for violating parking regulations regardless of the temporary obstruction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TieliikenneL 28 a §; TieliikenneL 105 §: A temporary obstruction of a mandatory parking sign by snow does not exempt a driver from the legal obligation to use the designated parking circle.

Keywords

AI generated
parking circle requirement snow obstruction defense traffic sign visibility administrative penalty dismissal liikennevalvontalaki

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TieliikenneL 28 a §
TieliikenneL 105 §
AI generated
kho-other_2016_5593
Supreme Administrative Court reversed lower court, ruling parking fine valid when original disability permit was missing, not a copy.
admin_2016_vaasa__94
Court dismissed parking claim where driver ignored missing yellow border on valid parking ban sign.
admin_1997_hame-county__715
Parking fine dismissed because vehicle was not within the prohibited parking zone defined by the sign.
kho-other_2016_2780
Court allows parking fine appeal by finding missing ticket was due to forgetfulness, not gross negligence.
admin_1992_mikkeli-county__858
Parking fine upheld for violating private area rules despite prior non-fine practice.

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

T oli pysäköinyt autonsa pysäköintikiekkoa käyttämättä paikalle, joka liikennemerkin mukaan edellytti pysäköintikiekon käyttöä. Lääninoikeus katsoi, ettei se seikka, että kiekon käyttöä osoittava liikennemerkki oli ollut sääolosuhteista johtuen tilapäisesti lumen peitossa, ollut vapauttanut T:tä selvittämästä, oliko tuolla liikennemerkillä ja mahdollisesti miten rajoitettu pysäköintiä puheena olevalla alueella. Hän oli näin ollen rikkonut pysäköintikiekon käyttämistä koskevia säännöksiä ja määräyksiä.

Äänestys.

TieliikenneL 28 a §

TieliikenneL 105 §