Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Itä-Suomen HO 22.07.1982 PÄ-855/81 AI generated

Court dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction, transferring case to defendant's domicile court under Civil Procedure Code.

Case Number Itä-Suomen HO 22.07.1982 PÄ-855/81
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 because the compensation claim must be filed at the court of the defendant's domicile, not the court that initially investigated the case. The appellant requested a transfer to the court of the defendant's residence under Section 29 of Chapter 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the defendant's location, rendering the original venue improper and the transfer request valid.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 29 of Chapter 10 of the Civil Procedure Code; jurisdiction for compensation claims lies with the court of the defendant's domicile, not the court that first investigated the matter.

Keywords

AI generated
jurisdiction transfer defendant domicile compensation claims civil procedure code venue objection court of appeal procedural defect

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 29 of Chapter 10 of the Civil Procedure Code

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1968-II-65
KKO:1968-II-65, KKO:1965-II-32, KKO:1962-II-90
KKO:1965-II-32
KKO:1968-II-65, KKO:1965-II-32, KKO:1962-II-90
KKO:1962-II-90
KKO:1968-II-65, KKO:1965-II-32, KKO:1962-II-90
AI generated
kko-precedent_2013_14
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when High Court wrongly denies retrial while altering lower court's reasoning.
kko-precedent_2003_108
Supreme Court held defendant liable for costs despite acquittal due to post-trial lighter law application.
kko-other_2018_944
Supreme Court allows retrial when lower court wrongly denies it based on insufficient evidence of participation in crime.
kko-other_2009_2319
Supreme Court allows appeal when lower court wrongly issues default judgment during preparation phase.
kko-precedent_2013_44
Supreme Court allows appeal on costs in family case without further handling permission as it falls under application proceedings.

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 vahingonkorvausta koskevaa kannetta oli ajettava X:n RO:ssa, jonka piirissä vastaajilla oli kotipaikka, eikä jutun tutkineessa Y:n KO:ssa, HO kantajan vastineessa esittämästä pyynnöstä siirsi jutun OK 10 luvun 29 §:n nojalla X:n RO:een.

KKO:1968-II-65, KKO:1965-II-32, KKO:1962-II-90

Halila: Vahingonkorvausasioissa esille tulevia prosessuaalisia

kysymyksiä, DL 1975, ss. 255-260

Tirkkonen: Suomen siviiliprosessioikeus II, 1966, ss. 432-433

Tirkkonen: Suomen siviiliprosessioikeus I, 1961, ss. 571-572

Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle ylimääräistä muutoksenhakua

koskevaksi lainsäädännöksi n:o 14/1958, ss. 12-13

Lainvoimainen