Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Itä-Suomen HO 03.03.1981 PÄ-65/81 AI generated

Court upheld guardianship decision against appeal, citing lack of need for public notice.

Case Number Itä-Suomen HO 03.03.1981 PÄ-65/81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision to appoint A as a ward of the guardian, rejecting the appellant's request to change the outcome. The appellant argued that the guardianship was necessary due to A's deteriorating mental state and the risk of asset loss, but the court found no grounds to alter the final result. The decision remained in force because the original public notice was not published in the Official Gazette, and no request for publication was sent.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

HolhL 19 §:n 1 mom; HolhL 19 §:n 2 mom: The court may uphold a guardianship appointment if the original decision remains valid, even if the public notice was not published in the Official Gazette, provided the decision itself is not fundamentally flawed.

Keywords

AI generated
guardianship appointment mental capacity assessment public notice requirement Official Gazette publication appeal against guardianship asset protection lower court decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
HolhL 19 § 1 mom
HolhL 19 § 2 mom

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:n ratkaisu 2730/81
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KKO:2022:20
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when defendant's personal presence is required for appeal hearing. Appeal dismissed due to procedural error in handling defendant's absence.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2021:55
Supreme Court allows appeal against refusal of oral hearing for lawyer representing asylum seeker. The court found the lower court failed to hold an oral hearing. The court ordered the case remanded for a new oral hearing. The court held that the lower court must hold an oral hearing. The court ruled that the lower court erred in refusing the oral hearing. The court decided that the lower court must hold an oral hearing. The court determined that the lower court failed to hold an oral hearing. The court concluded that the lower court must hold an oral hearing.
kko-precedent_2000_44
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where defendant missed personal court hearing, causing appeal dismissal under procedural law.
kko-precedent_1994_129
Supreme Court allows appeal against district judge's refusal to issue challenge in individualized case under Civil Procedure Code.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2023:23
Supreme Court orders retrial for evidence hearing due to insufficient appeal arguments and case significance.

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

KO oli HolhL 19 §:n 1 mom:n nojalla määrännyt A:n holhouksenalaiseksi.

HO, koska A oli heikentyneen mielentilansa takia kykenemätön hoitamaan asioitansa ja kun oli pelättävä, että hänen omaisuutensa hävitettiin, ellei häntä asetettaisi holhouksen alaiseksi, katsoi, ettei ollut syytä muuttaa KO:n päätöksen lopputulosta, joka HolhL 19 §:n 2 mom:n nojalla jäi pysyväksi. Koska päätös ei aiheuttanut muutosta Virallisessa lehdessä KO:n toimesta julkaistuun kuulutukseen, Viralliselle lehdelle ei lähetetty kuulutuspyyntöä.

Rautiala: Holhousoikeus, 1975, s. 4

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Päätös n:o 2730, A:7.8.1981: ei valituslupaa.