Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Itä-Suomen HAO 25.04.2022 983/2022 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal against restaurant closure for 21 days for intentional alcohol law violations.

Case Number Itä-Suomen HAO 25.04.2022 983/2022
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 the Regional Administrative Agency's order to close a restaurant for 21 days. The agency closed the establishment because staff intentionally violated serving and opening hour restrictions under the Infection Protection Act. The court found the 21-day duration appropriate given the intentional nature of the breach and the difficulty of enforcement.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Infection Protection Act 58 b §; Administrative Procedure Act 56 §: The administrative authority may consider the intentional nature of a violation when determining the duration of a business suspension, and a 21-day closure is not disproportionate for intentional breaches of serving hour restrictions.

Keywords

AI generated
Infection Protection Act business suspension intentional violation proportionality principle administrative discretion alcohol service hours penalty duration

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Infection Protection Act 58 b §
Administrative Procedure Act 56 §
AI generated
admin_2011_kuopio__13
Court dismissed restaurant's appeal for extending closing hours due to live music programming.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2022:147
Court allows restaurant closure order but rejects take-away ban and limits order duration to original restrictions.
labour_2001_35
Labor court ruled a security guard on service fee was in an employment relationship entitled to vacation pay.
admin_2022_vaasa__387
Administrative court dismisses appeal against food business closure, finding procedural hearing requirements met.
kko-precedent_1998_159
Supreme Court dismisses official resistance charge against a restaurant orderly not defined by statute.

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

Itä-Suomen aluehallintovirasto oli määrännyt ravintolan ravitsemis- ja anniskelutoiminnan keskeytettäväksi ja ravintolan pidettäväksi suljettuna asiakkailta 21 päivän ajaksi tartuntatautilain 58 b §:n perusteella, koska ravintolassa oli tietoisesti rikottu ravitsemisliikkeiden voimassa olleita anniskelu- ja aukiolorajoituksia.

Aluehallintovirasto oli voinut ottaa toiminnan keskeytyksen kestoa koskevassa harkinnassa huomioon edellä selostetut rikkomuksen tahallisuuden, julkisuuden ja valvontaviranomaisen tavoittamattomissa olemisen ja arvioida 21 päivän keston olevan oikeasuhtainen seuraamus. Valituksenalaista päätöstä ei ollut pidettävä lainvastaisena tai suhteellisuusperiaatteen vastaisena.

Asian ovat ratkaisseet hallinto-oikeuden jäsenet Jukka Hartikainen ja Karoliina Hyvärinen sekä asiantuntijajäsen Kustaa Piha. Asian esittelevä jäsen Karoliina Hyvärinen.

KHO:n päätös 22.12.2022, 3726/2022: Valituslupahakemus ja valitus muutettu/kumottu