Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HAO 30.6.2005 05/1017/1 AI generated

Administrative court allowed appeal despite expired time limit because defendant failed to serve decision on mother.

Case Number Helsingin HAO 30.6.2005 05/1017/1
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court allowed the mother's appeal against her residence permit denial despite the time limit having expired for the son. The court found that the foreign office had not formally served the decision on the mother, meaning the statutory period for her to appeal had not yet begun. Consequently, the court ruled that the procedural defect prevented the expiration of the appeal deadline.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 6 §; 22 §: If a decision is not served on a party, the time limit for appeal does not run against them, and the court must examine the appeal even if the time limit has expired for other parties.

Keywords

AI generated
service of decision time limit for appeal residence permit family reunification procedural defect administrative court foreign office

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 6 §
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 6 §
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 22 §
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 22 §
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KHO:2024:86
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal because child protection decision limiting contact rights was not served to mother evidentially.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2023:46
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal despite late filing because administrative court decision was not a binding obligation order.
admin_2005_helsinki__1994
Administrative court allows residence permit for minor child of Finnish father under family ties law.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2022:121
Supreme Administrative Court allows family members' appeal against deportation based on ECHR Art. 8 and EU Charter rights.
kko-precedent_2017_68
Supreme Court allows mother continued proceedings for legal costs after lower court split costs equally in custody enforcement case.

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

Suomessa asuva poika oli hakenut perheenyhdistämisen perusteella oleskelulupaa ulkomailla asuvalle äidilleen. Ulkomaalaisvirasto oli hylännyt hakemuksen. Äiti valitti Ulkomaalaisviraston päätöksestä hallinto-oikeuteen. Päätös oli annettu tiedoksi pojalle Suomessa. Asiakirjoista ei ilmennyt, että äitiä koskeva päätös olisi annettu todisteellisesti tiedoksi hänelle itselleen. Valitusaika ei hänen osaltaan ollut alkanut kulua. Hallinto-oikeus tutki valituksen siitä huolimatta, että valitusaika pojan osalta oli jo äidin valituksen vireille tullessa päättynyt.

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 6 §

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 22 §