Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Mikkelin LO 31.3.1992 190 AI generated

Social assistance claim for electricity bill in former residence rejected as belonging to current municipality.

Case Number Mikkelin LO 31.3.1992 190
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The applicant sought social assistance to cover an electricity bill for a property used as a weekend home in their former municipality. The social committee and the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the claim, ruling that jurisdiction belonged to the municipality where the applicant currently resides. The court upheld this decision based on the statutory provision assigning such matters to the municipality of residence.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom 2 kohta: Social assistance claims regarding expenses for a property in the former municipality of residence fall under the jurisdiction of the current municipality of residence.

Keywords

AI generated
social assistance jurisdiction former municipality residence weekend home expenses electricity bill claim administrative court appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom 2 kohta
AI generated
admin_1999_turku__1050
Administrative court reduced waste fee for non-local resident to match local resident rate under Waste Act.
kho-precedent_2001_34
Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the municipality with the family's fixed connection is the home municipality, not the one where leisure time is spent.
kho-precedent_2015_77
Court rules that previous municipality must pay day activity costs as integral to care home service.
insurance_2013_4100-2011
Insurance court dismissed appeal; social security board lacked jurisdiction to review housing allowance repayment legality.
kho-precedent_2017_106
Supreme Administrative Court allows municipality to claim costs from original home municipality for special care housing. The court ruled that the move was not a normal relocation, so the original municipality retained financial responsibility. The decision clarifies that cost liability follows the original home municipality unless a normal move occurred.

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

Oikeuskysymyksenä oli, minkä kunnan käsiteltäväksi kuului

toimeentulotukihakemus, joka koski hakijan edellisessä asuinkunnassa

olevaan, hakijan vapaa-ajan asunnoksi jääneeseen

asuntoon kohdistuvaa sähkölaskua.

Henkilö oli muuttanut 4.6.1991. Sähkölasku muodostui perusmaksusta

muuton jälkeiseltä ajalta ja tasauslaskusta ajalta

19.10.1990 - 1.10.1991 ja jonka eräpäivä oli 14.11.1991.

Kiinteistön sijaintikunnan sosiaalilautakunta hylkäsi toimeentulotukihakemuksen

sillä perusteella, että asia kuului

hakijan oleskelukunnan käsiteltäväksi.

Lääninoikeus hylkäsi hakijan valituksen samalla perusteella.

SosiaalihuoltoL 13 § 1 mom 2 kohta