Legislator Case Law & Legislation
Uudenmaan LO 24.5.1995 767/2 AI generated

Court allows full basic income share for student spouse when state-guaranteed loan is unavailable due to debt restructuring.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 24.5.1995 767/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court allowed the county social services to include the student spouse's basic income share in full, contrary to the lower authority's reduction. The student spouse was enrolled but could not receive state-guaranteed student loans due to a prior debt restructuring, making the loan unavailable as the primary income source. The court ruled that since the statutory primary benefit was inaccessible, the full basic income share must be considered in the benefit calculation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §; Sosiaalihuoltolaki 32 §: When a student's primary source of support is a state-guaranteed loan that is unavailable due to debt restructuring, the full basic income share must be included in the income calculation rather than reduced.

Keywords

AI generated
student spouse income state guaranteed loan debt restructuring basic income share social assistance calculation primary income source administrative court ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 30 §
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 32 §
VNp toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista (988/93)
VNp toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista (988/93)

Cited Case Law

AI generated
ULO A:7.4.1994 T:458/1
Toisin ULO A:7.4.1994 T:458/1
AI generated

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

Aviopuolisoiden toimeentulotukilaskelmassa oli opiskelevan

vaimon perusosa otettu huomioon täysimääräistä pienempänä,

koska opiskelijan ensisijainen toimeentulon kattamismuoto

on opintotuki. Velkajärjestelyn vuoksi opiskelija ei ollut

kuitenkaan voinut saada pankista valtion takaamaa opintolainaa.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että perusosa on tullut ottaa

toimeentulotukilaskelmassa täysimääräisenä huomioon, koska

ensisijainen etuus eli opintolaina ei ollut ollut opiskelijan

käytettävissä.

SosiaalihuoltoL 30 §

SosiaalihuoltoL 32 §

VNp toimeentulotuen yleisistä perusteista (988/93)

Toisin ULO A:7.4.1994 T:458/1