Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HAO 15.10.2004 04/0880/2 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal as inadmissible due to lack of legal interest in the contested decision.

Case Number Helsingin HAO 15.10.2004 04/0880/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal because the contested decision lacked legal interest, rendering a review unnecessary. The patient was admitted for observation under M1 status, but the attending physician determined conditions for involuntary psychiatric treatment were absent, requiring immediate release. The court ruled that reviewing the separate decision regarding involuntary treatment conditions was legally redundant since the patient's release was already mandated by the observation status.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Mielenterveyslaki 10 § 2 mom; Mielenterveyslaki 24 § 1 mom: A decision declaring that conditions for involuntary psychiatric treatment are absent is legally redundant when the patient is already under observation status mandating release, thus lacking legal interest for administrative court review.

Keywords

AI generated
legal interest requirement involuntary psychiatric treatment observation status release administrative court admissibility redundant legal decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Mielenterveyslaki 10 § 2 mom
Mielenterveyslaki 10 § 2 mom
Mielenterveyslaki 24 § 1 mom
Mielenterveyslaki 24 § 1 mom
Hallinto-oikeuslaki 3 §
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 51 § 2 mom
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 51 § 2 mom
AI generated
admin_2013_helsinki__427
Administrative court upheld mandatory psychiatric hospitalization continuation based on patient's mental state and safety risks.
admin_2003_helsinki__805
Administrative court dismissed deceased applicant's appeal regarding psychiatric hospitalization despite equal split on continuing proceedings.
admin_2009_helsinki__504
Administrative court upheld psychiatrist's order to continue involuntary psychiatric hospitalization under Mental Health Act.
kho-precedent_2015_109
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal regarding hospital's right to challenge mental health treatment decisions.
kho-precedent_2012_75
Supreme Administrative Court upheld involuntary psychiatric hospitalization continuation despite procedural concerns under ECHR Article 5.1.1.1.

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

Henkilö oli tullut psykiatriseen sairaalaan tarkkailulähetteellä (M1). Tarkkailuajan kuluessa tarkkailusta vastaava lääkäri on antamassaan tarkkailulausunnossa (M2) todennut, että edellytyksiä henkilön tahdosta riippumattomaan psykiatriseen sairaalahoitoon ei ole ollut. Näin ollen mielenterveyslain 10 §:n 2 momentin säännökset huomioon ottaen henkilön pitämisestä tarkkailussa on ollut heti luovuttava ja hänet on ollut poistettava sairaalasta, jos hän on sitä halunnut. Oikeudellisesti tarpeetonta on ollut tehdä päätös (M3), jossa on katsottu, että mielenterveyslain 8 §:n mukaisia edellytyksiä henkilön määräämiselle psykiatriseen sairaalahoitoon hänen tahdostaan riippumatta ei ole ollut.

Hallinto-oikeus ei tutkinut valitusta päätöksestä (M3), koska se ei sisältänyt sellaista ratkaisua, jonka johdosta henkilöllä olisi ollut asiassa oikeussuojan tarvetta ja johon hän olisi saanut hakea muutosta valittamalla. Hallinto-oikeus poisti päätökseen liitetyn valitusosoituksen.

Mielenterveyslaki 10 § 2 mom

Mielenterveyslaki 24 § 1 mom

Hallinto-oikeuslaki 3 §

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 51 § 2 mom