Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HAO 10.10.2011 11/0293/1 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed delay interest claim on public law salary but allowed pre-act delay interest.

Case Number Turun HAO 10.10.2011 11/0293/1
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the claim for delay interest calculated under the Delay Interest Act, ruling that public law debts are exempt from this statute. However, the court found that the salary owed to the trust body chairman was subject to delay interest based on the preceding Commercial Code provisions. Consequently, the claim was partially allowed to the extent it sought interest under the older Commercial Code rules.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Delay Interest Act s. 1; Commercial Code s. 9.10: While the Delay Interest Act does not apply to debts arising from public law, delay interest must still be paid on such debts if the preceding Commercial Code provisions mandate it.

Keywords

AI generated
Delay Interest Act public law debt Commercial Code provisions trust body chairman salary delay interest

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Delay Interest Act s. 1
Commercial Code s. 9.10
AI generated
admin_1992_water-superior__35
Administrative court orders 16% delay interest on damages claim for unauthorized water diversion.
kho-other_2018_5349
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal against municipal authority's order to recover overpaid salary due to lack of valid administrative decision.
kko-precedent_1997_155
Supreme Court allows municipality to pay interest on buyer's loan costs under purchase right law.
kho-precedent_2001_23
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed delayed interest claim on public law salary debt due to lack of statutory basis.
labour_2013_5
Labor court orders employer to pay wage increase to non-rateable staff and union damages for oversight failure.

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

Keskusvaalilautakunnan puheenjohtaja vaati kaupungin velvoittamista maksamaan viivästyskorkoa luottamustoimen hoitamisesta maksetuille puheenjohtajan vuosipalkkioille.

Hallinto-oikeus hylkäsi vaatimuksen korkolain mukaisen viivästyskoron maksamisesta, koska kysymys oli julkisoikeudellisesta perusteesta johtuvasta saatavasta, johon ei sovelleta korkolakia. Hallinto-oikeus katsoi kuitenkin, että luottamusmiespalkkioille oli maksettava korkolakia edeltäneen kauppakaaren 9 luvun 8 §:n mukaista viivästyskorkoa.

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 69 §

Korkolaki 1 § 2 mom 1 kohta