Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Lapin LO 14.5.1992 523 AI generated

County Court quashes council decision as member was not a party to their own dismissal.

Case Number Lapin LO 14.5.1992 523
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The County Court quashed the municipal council's decision to dismiss a member of the council from their position as the business affairs officer. The council argued the dismissal was procedural, but the court found the member was not personally affected until the employment relationship formally ended. Consequently, the member could not have been a biased party to a decision regarding their own dismissal, rendering the procedure invalid.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

KunL 25 § 1 mom; KunL 139 § 2 mom: A council member cannot be a biased party to a decision dismissing their own office if the decision does not immediately terminate their employment relationship with the municipality.

Keywords

AI generated
municipal council decision biased party rule employment relationship termination procedural order invalidity member of council

Cited Legislation

AI generated
KunL 25 § 1 mom
KunL 139 § 2 mom
AI generated
admin_1988_central-finland-county__970
Administrative court dismissed appeal as procedural error required correction under administrative procedure law.
admin_1993_turku-and-pori-county__228
Administrative court dismisses appeal where council member is disqualified due to conflict of interest in spouse's dismissal case.
kho-precedent_2004_75
Supreme Administrative Court quashes decisions for failing to notify a permanent holder of a public office of termination.
kho-precedent_1997_109
Supreme Administrative Court rules dismissal of municipal official under 1995 Municipal Act requires prior hearing.
admin_1992_kuopio-county__182
Administrative court dismisses appeal for failure to attach required decision to appeal document.

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

Onko elinkeinoasiamiehen viran lakkauttaminen tapahtunut virheellisessä

järjestyksessä sen vuoksi, että sanotussa virassa

ollut valtuuston jäsen ei ollut saanut ottaa osaa päätöksen

tekemiseen puheena olevan viran lakkauttamista koskevassa

asiassa.

Valtuusto oli päättänyt lakkauttaa elinkeinoasiamiehen viran.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että kunnan virkasäännön mukaan viran

lakkauttaminen ei välttämättä merkinnyt sitä, että virassa

olevan henkilön virkasuhde kuntaan lakkasi. Valtuuston päätöksellä

ei siten vielä ollut välitöntä vaikutusta sanotussa

virassa olleen valtuuston jäsenen oikeusasemaan. Tämän vuoksi

valtuuston päätös ei koskenut virassa ollutta valtuuston

jäsentä sillä tavoin henkilökohtaisesti kuin kunnallislain

25 §:n 1 momentissa tarkoitetaan. Koska sanottu henkilö ei

siis ollut valtuuston jäsenenä esteellinen osallistumaan viran

lakkauttamista koskevan päätöksen tekemiseen, lääninoikeus

kumosi valtuuston päätöksen.

KunL 25 § 1 mom

KunL 139 § 2 mom