Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 28.01.1976 952 AI generated

Court dismisses tenant's appeal for vacation rental termination, ruling statutory protections do not apply to such short-term leases.

Case Number Helsingin HO 28.01.1976 952
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the tenant's appeal against the lower court's order to vacate a vacation rental property. The lower court found the tenant had legally terminated the lease without the tenant's consent, noting that specific tenant protection regulations do not apply to vacation rentals. Consequently, the court upheld the decision that the tenant must move out as the termination was lawful under the applicable rules.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

HVL 1970:101; HVL 1970:102: The regulations protecting a tenant's right to terminate a lease do not apply to vacation rental agreements, and therefore, a tenant's failure to notify the landlord of the termination reason is irrelevant when the termination itself is lawful.

Keywords

AI generated
vacation rental termination tenant protection regulations short-term lease notice of termination court of appeal ruling lease agreement validity eviction order enforcement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
HVL 1970:101
HVL 1970:102
AI generated
appeal_1978_helsinki__301
Court dismissed tenant's appeal, ruling consecutive fixed-term leases without notice constitute implied termination.
appeal_1974_helsinki__103
Tenant eviction claim dismissed because termination notice lacked required statutory grounds and was therefore void.
appeal_1979_helsinki__33
Court rejects tenant's early termination of fixed-term lease due to invalidity of new law on termination periods.
appeal_1978_helsinki__7
Court allows tenant to stay until end of contractual term despite landlord's early termination notice.
appeal_1977_helsinki__433
Tenant's claim for compensation for improvements was dismissed due to failure to vacate premises after termination.

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

A:n kanteesta Orimattilan KO on päätöksessään 19.8.1975 lausunut, että A oli 22.11.1974 irtisanonut hänen ja B:n välisen lomanviettoasuntoa koskevan vuokrasopimuksen päättymään 28.2.1975 ja ettei B irtisanomisesta huolimatta ollut jättänyt asuntoa A:n hallintaan.

Koska HVL:n säännöksiä vuokralaisen irtisanomissuojasta ei ollut sovellettava lomanviettoasunnon vuokraamisessa eikä irtisanomisperusteen ilmoittamisella niin ollen ollut merkitystä, KO on, katsoen irtisanomisen tapahtuneen laillisesti, velvoittanut B:n muuttamaan.

B haki muutosta.

HO: Ei muutosta.

Läsnä: af Hällström - Seppälä - Kalliokoski - Wiias - Pohjola

ES.