Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HAO 8.12.2006 06/0426/1 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed election of auditor due to procedural timing conflict with new audit committee.

Case Number Vaasan HAO 8.12.2006 06/0426/1
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 municipality's request to appoint a new auditor based on a previous audit committee's proposal. The court found that since the new audit committee had already been elected, it was the new committee's duty to propose the auditor, not the old one. Consequently, the appointment was invalid because it bypassed the procedural requirement for the newly elected body to make the recommendation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Kuntalaki 71 § 1 mom.; The appointment of an auditor must be proposed by the newly elected audit committee if the election of that committee occurred before the appointment, rendering a proposal by the former committee procedurally invalid.

Keywords

AI generated
municipal auditor election audit committee procedure procedural timing conflict municipal law section 71 administrative court dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Kuntalaki 71 § 1 mom.
AI generated
admin_2013_aland__90
Administrative court dismissed gender equality requirement for auditor selection under Åland County Act.
admin_2006_vaasa__281
Audit firm disqualified for lack of independence due to internal auditor's dual role and ownership.
admin_1985_turku-and-pori-county__838
Election law ruling: daughter's role as chief accountant does not disqualify father as auditor candidate.
kho-precedent_1999_48
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal when audit committee fails to prepare budget resolution per municipal law.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2021:81
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal without permission for auditor warning cases under specific audit law provisions.

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

K:n kuntayhtymän yhtymävaltuusto oli valinnut edellisen yhtymävaltuuston toimikaudeksi valitun tarkastuslautakunnan päätösehdotuksen perusteella tilintarkastajan yhtymävaltuuston tulevaksi toimikaudeksi.

Hallinto-oikeus katsoi, että koska tilintarkastajan valinta kohdistui aikaan, jolle yhtymävaltuusto oli jo valinnut uuden tarkastuslautakunnan, uuden tarkastuslautakunnan olisi tullut tehdä päätösehdotus yhtymävaltuustolle tilintarkastajan valinnasta.

Kuntalaki 71 § 1 mom.

Harjula-Prättälä: Kuntalaki, 2004, s. 526.

Suomen kuntaliiton yleiskirje 24/80/2004 s. 14.

Ei lainvoimainen