Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HAO 27.11.2014 14/0680/3 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal where police failed to inform driver of relevant driving record before imposing ban.

Case Number Turun HAO 27.11.2014 14/0680/3
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 appeal against a driving ban imposed by the police authority. The police failed to include the applicant's driving record in the hearing letter, despite the record being potentially relevant to the decision. The court ruled that this omission rendered the hearing procedure defective and violated the applicant's right to be heard.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Hallintolaki 34 §; Hallintolaki 36 §: A decision-making authority must disclose all material facts and evidence relevant to the case to the affected party before the decision is made to ensure a fair hearing.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative procedure right to be heard driving ban defective hearing material facts disclosure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Hallintolaki 34 §
Hallintolaki 36 §
AI generated
kho-precedent_2013_161
Supreme Administrative Court allows police to appeal administrative court decision on driving ban based on fines.
admin_1996_uusimaa-county__892
Driving ban revoked because prior offense occurred as employer, not driver, violating statutory intent.
kho-precedent_2009_60
Supreme Administrative Court allows driver ban revocation after acquittal on traffic safety charge.
kko-precedent_2009_44
Vehicle tax offense dismissed for lack of intent; vehicle driving offenses allowed due to negligence in checking registration.
admin_2002_turku__632
Administrative court allows police driving ban based on new guidelines while considering equal treatment principles.

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

Poliisilaitosoli määrännyt X:n ajokieltoon toistuvien liikennerikkomustenjohdosta. Poliisilaitoksen päätöksestä ilmeni, ettäajoneuvoliikennerekisterin tiedot olisivat saattaneet vaikuttaa asianratkaisuun. Kuulemiskirjeestä ei ollut selvinnyt, että X:nrekisteristä ilmenevällä ajohistorialla voi olla merkitystäasiassa, eikä poliisilaitos myöskään ollut liittänyt kirjeeseenrekisterin otetta. Kun näin ei ollut menetelty, X:n kuuleminen oliollut puutteellista.

Hallintolaki 34 §

Hallintolaki 36 §