Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kuopion HAO 31.5.2002 02/0361/2 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed claim for contract damages where public authority fulfilled statutory care duties under family care act.

Case Number Kuopion HAO 31.5.2002 02/0361/2
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 plaintiffs' claim for damages regarding a period where the defendant municipality had not yet moved the child into their new apartment. The plaintiffs argued for compensation for the gap between the child moving in and settling into the new residence, while the municipality contended it was fulfilling statutory obligations under the Family Care Act. The court ruled that since the municipality was legally required to provide the care, the contractual dispute was subsumed by public law duties, rendering the private law claim inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 69 §; Hallintolainkäyttölaki 70 § 1 mom; Hallintolainkäyttölaki 73 §: When a public authority's performance of statutory care duties under the Family Care Act constitutes the primary legal basis for a dispute, a claim for damages based on a private service contract is dismissed as the matter falls under public law jurisdiction.

Keywords

AI generated
public law contract dispute Family Care Act obligations statutory care duties administrative court jurisdiction dismissal of private claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 69 §
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 69 §
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 70 § 1 mom
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 70 § 1 mom
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 73 §
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 73 §
AI generated
admin_1995_turku-and-pori-county__459
County court ruled municipality cannot unilaterally terminate family care contract due to changed circumstances.
admin_2002_kuopio__683
Administrative court dismissed public law contract claim regarding family caregiver compensation and holiday pay.
appeal_1974_helsinki__24
Tenant must vacate premises upon lawful termination due to landlord's own use and local housing shortage.
kko-precedent_1996_54
Supreme Court dismisses spousal housing usage compensation claim under Marriage Act Section 24 as unreasonable.
appeal_1964_vaasa__x259
Husband ordered to pay wife 1962 maintenance overpayment; 1963 claim dismissed due to statute of limitations.

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

Kunta A oli tehnyt B:n ja C:n kanssa perhehoitajalain mukaisen D:n hoitamista koskevan toimeksiantosopimuksen. Toimeksiantosopimuksessa oli irtisanomiskohdassa sovittu sopimuksen irtisanomisesta, "kun D saa asunnon". D sai asunnon 18.4.2000, mutta muutti asuntoonsa vasta 16.8.2000. Kyseisen perhehoidon toimeksiantosopimuksen mukaan D:n lastensuojelun jälkihuolto järjestettiin B:n ja C:n luona 7.10.1998 alkaen siihen saakka, kunnes D:n muut asumisjärjestelyt saatiin kuntoon.

B ja C vaativat hallinto-oikeudessa, että kunta A velvoitettaisiin suorittamaan toimeksiantosopimuksen mukaista korvausta ajalta 1.6.-16.8.2000. Kunta oli maksanut sopimuksen mukaan korvaukset 31.5.2000 saakka.

Hallinto-oikeus tutki asian hallintoriita-asiana, koska kunta oli velvollinen järjestämään laissa säädetyn hoidon ja perhehoitajalaissa on säädetty toimeksiantosopimuksen vähimmäisvaatimuksista. Asiassa oli siten kyse julkisoikeudellista sopimussuhdetta koskevasta riidasta.

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 69 §

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 70 § 1 mom

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 73 §