Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HAO 28.4.2004 04/0181/1 AI generated

Warning given to teacher; dismissal appeal dismissed as warning is preparatory, not final decision.

Case Number Vaasan HAO 28.4.2004 04/0181/1
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 teacher's appeal against a warning issued by the municipal education board regarding her duties. The board argued that the warning was merely a preparatory step under the Municipal Employees Act, not a final decision on dismissal. Consequently, the court held that no administrative review or appeal was permissible against this preparatory measure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

L 35 § 3 mom; KuntaL 91 §: A warning issued to a municipal employee regarding the performance of duties is a preparatory measure and does not constitute a final decision on dismissal, thereby precluding administrative review or appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
municipal employees act preparatory measure warning procedure dismissal appeal administrative review final decision municipal education board

Cited Legislation

AI generated
L 35 § 3 mom
KuntaL 91 §
AI generated
kho-precedent_2017_28
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal as city council lacks statutory right to appeal school board decisions.
admin_2014_hameenlinna__56
Administrative court quashes council decision on resignation from deputy position due to valid statutory grounds.
kho-precedent_2013_162
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal to administrative court for personal assistant decisions made alongside special education support. The court ruled that the appeal path for personal assistants differs from special education support. The lower court lacked jurisdiction and must retry the case. The court clarified that decisions on personal assistants and special education support are separate legal matters. The court held that the appeal path for personal assistants differs from special education support. The lower court lacked jurisdiction and must retry the case. The court clarified that decisions on personal assistants and special education support are separate legal matters. The court held that the appeal path for personal assistants differs from special education support. The lower court lacked jurisdiction and must retry the case. The court clarified that decisions on personal assistants and special education support are separate legal matters.
admin_2012_rovaniemi__157
Administrative court dismissed appeal as preparatory decision lacking binding legal effect on tax authority.
admin_2011_helsinki__264
Administrative court dismisses appeal as emergency placement termination is a non-reviewable administrative act.

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

X:n kunnan sivistyslautakunta oli antanut luokanopettaja A:lle varoituksen liittyen A:n viranhoitoon. A vaati valituksessaan hallinto-oikeudelle sivistyslautakunnan päätöksen kumoamista.

Hallinto-oikeus totesi päätöksessään, että kunnallisesta viranhaltijasta annetun lain 35 §:n 3 momentin mukaan viranhaltijaa, joka on laiminlyönyt virkasuhteesta johtuvien velvollisuuksiensa täyttämisen tai rikkonut niitä, ei saa irtisanoa ennen kuin hänelle on varoituksella annettu mahdollisuus korjata menettelynsä.

Varoitus oli virkasuhteen mahdolliseen päättämiseen liittyvä valmisteleva toimenpide. Sivistyslautakunnan päätös koski näin ollen vain valmistelua eikä päätöksestä siten saanut tehdä oikaisuvaatimusta eikä kunnallisvalitusta.

Näillä perusteilla hallinto-oikeus poisti sivistyslautakunnan päätökseen liitetyn valitusosoituksen ja jätti A:n valituksen tutkimatta.

L kunnallisesta viranhaltijasta 35 § 3 mom

KuntaL 91 §

Ei lainvoimainen