Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HAO 22.12.2010 10/0863/3 AI generated

Court dismisses driving ban request where offenses occurred before and after license acquisition, preventing a continuous ban.

Case Number Turun HAO 22.12.2010 10/0863/3
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Turku dismissed the applicant's request for a driving ban based on two traffic offenses committed within a year. The first offense occurred before the applicant obtained a car license, while the second happened over two years after receiving a motorcycle license. The court ruled that because the offenses were separated by the acquisition of a new license, they do not constitute a continuous pattern warranting a ban under the Road Traffic Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tieliikennelaki 75 § 3 mom; A driving ban cannot be imposed when offenses occur before and after the acquisition of a driving license if they do not form a continuous pattern of violations.

Keywords

AI generated
driving ban Road Traffic Act license acquisition continuous violation administrative court traffic offense procedural timing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Tieliikennelaki 75 § 3 mom
Tieliikennelaki 75 § 3 mom
AI generated
kko-precedent_2000_37
Supreme Court allows new charges for distinct acts within a series despite prior conviction for initial act.
admin_2004_turku__405
Court dismisses driver ban for short-term license holder based only on offenses committed after license acquisition.
admin_1994_vaasa-county__492
Court dismisses temporary driving ban for single weed detector violation under Finnish Traffic Act.
appeal_1985_eastern-finland__161
Court of Appeal rejected merging separate drunk driving offenses into one continued offense due to distinct criminal acts.
admin_1990_kuopio-county__45
Driving without a license after license revocation is invalid if the six-month waiting period has not elapsed.

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

R:lle oli myönnetty A1-luokan eli niin sanotun kevytmoottoripyörän ajo-oikeus 5.2.2008 ja B-luokan lyhyt­aikainen ajo-oikeus eli auton ajo-oikeus 10.2.2010. R oli syyllistynyt liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantamiseen ja ajo­neuvorikkomukseen 6.10.2009 kuljettaessaan A1-luokan moottoripyörää ja 10.8.2010 kuljettaessaan henkilöautoa.

R on syyllistynyt kahdesti vuoden sisällä liikennerikkomuksiin. Ensimmäinen teko on kuitenkin tapahtunut ennen kuin R:lla on ollut auton lyhytaikainen ajo-oikeus ja jälkimmäinen teko yli kaksi vuotta A1-ajo-oikeuden saamisen jälkeen. Rikkomusten perusteella ei siten voida määrätä ajokieltoa.

Tieliikennelaki 75 § 3 mom