Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Keski-Suomen LO 23.10.1992 955 AI generated

Administrative court dismisses appeal where public service dismissal notice was served generally, not individually.

Case Number Keski-Suomen LO 23.10.1992 955
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 municipal council's decision to terminate a clerk's employment. The appellant argued that the dismissal violated their right to be notified individually under the Municipal Code, claiming the general public notice was insufficient. The court held that the statutory requirement for individual notification was not met, but the appeal was rejected because the general notice was legally sufficient for calculating the appeal period.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Municipal Code s. 139 para. 1; s. 33: The right to be notified as a holder of a public office is not infringed if the decision is made generally available, as separate individual service for appeal period calculation is not required.

Keywords

AI generated
public service dismissal individual notification requirement appeal period calculation Municipal Code service administrative appeal dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Municipal Code s. 139 para. 1
Municipal Code s. 33
AI generated
insurance_1979_6892-1978
Finnish Insurance Court dismissed late appeal due to failure to notify decision within statutory 30-day period.
admin_1993_uusimaa-county__947
Administrative court dismissed appeal as filed late due to statutory time limit rules.
insurance_2009_5239-2008
Insurance court dismissed late appeal due to lack of hearing on delay reasons, remanding for new review.
insurance_2003_3325-2002
Insurance court dismissed appeal; late filing rejected due to lack of serious reasons for delay.
kho-precedent_2000_52
Supreme Administrative Court allows late appeal by interpreting notice of decision as given on actual receipt date.

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

Kunnanvaltuuston päätös lakkauttaa toimistovirkailijan virka ei loukannut T:n oikeutta viran haltijana kunnallislain 139 §:n 1 momentissa tarkoitetulla tavalla niin, että päätös olisi tullut antaa hänelle tiedoksi kunnallislain 33 §:ssä säädetyllä tavalla erikseen. Valitusaika valtuuston päätöksestä luettiin siitä, kun päätös oli säädetyllä tavalla asetettu yleisesti nähtäväksi. Sillä seikalla, että valittajalle oli mainitulla tavalla laskettavan valitusajan jälkeen annettu valituksenalainen päätös tiedoksi erikseen lähettämällä päätöskappale valitusosoituksineen postitse saantitodistusta vaatimatta, ei ollut valitusajan laskemisen kannalta oikeudellista merkitystä.