Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 11.11.1966 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; failure to explain refusal of complaint makes complaint legally valid.

Case Number Vaasan HO 11.11.1966
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal regarding the validity of a complaint against a decision to accept a list. The applicant argued the list was invalid because the authority failed to explain why they could not accept a complaint. The court held that the complaint was legally valid precisely because the authority did not provide the required explanation for rejecting the complaint.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Administrative Procedure Act; Administrative Procedure Code: A complaint is considered legally valid if the authority fails to explain why it cannot accept the complaint, thereby rendering the applicant's objection lawful.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative complaint validity failure to explain refusal administrative procedure law list acceptance procedure appeal dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Administrative Procedure Act
Administrative Procedure Code
AI generated
kko-other_1999_2183
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding interpretation of objection notice when lower court procedure was erroneous.
appeal_1982_rovaniemi__568
Failure to submit written appeal instructions within the statutory deadline results in dismissal of the appeal.
kko-precedent_1998_50
Supreme Court restores time limit for debt arrangement objection when client's lawyer missed notification due to client's illness.
kko-other_2019_572
Supreme Court dismissed appeal; prisoner waived right to appeal by accepting sentence to prison director.
labour_2013_116
Individual employee dismissed from collective agreement suit due to union inaction 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

Koska asianosainen oli tuomiokunnan arkistossa ilmoittanut tyytymättömyyttä sellaisen ilmoituksen vastaanottamiseen oikeutetuksi luulemalleen kanslistille ja kun kanslisti ei ollut asianosaisen muutoksenhakemuksessaan tekemän ilmoituksen mukaan asianosaiselle selittänyt, ettei hänellä ollut oikeutta ottaa vastaan tyytymättömyydenilmoitusta, vaan oli ottanut asianosaisen ilmoituksen vastaan, katsottiin asianosaisen tehneen tyytymättömyydenilmoituksensa laillisesti.

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Päätös n:o 1639/28.6.1967; ei muutoksenhakulupaa.