Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HO 03.12.1982 TU-772 AI generated

Court of Appeal remands case for retrial due to lower court's failure to notify defendant of appeal.

Case Number Turun HO 03.12.1982 TU-772
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 appeal against the lower court's decision to remand the case. The lower court had issued a one-sided judgment while the defendant was absent and failed to serve the appeal notice. Consequently, the procedural error was corrected by sending the case back to the lower court for a lawful retrial.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

OK 12 luku 12 ja 13 §: A one-sided judgment rendered in the absence of a party without proper service of the appeal notice constitutes a procedural error requiring the case to be remanded for retrial.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural error one-sided judgment service of notice remand for retrial absence of party civil procedure appeal notice

Cited Legislation

AI generated
OK 12 luku 12 ja 13 §
AI generated
appeal_1980_eastern-finland__555
Appeal dismissed because retirement claim is not an administrative case under the Administrative Court Act.
kko-precedent_2007_79
Supreme Court quashes prison sentence without trial; defendant must be heard personally before conviction. Outcome: case remanded to High Court.
kko-precedent_1994_107
Supreme Court dismisses appeal due to lower court's failure to state reasons in appeal decision under procedural law.
kko-precedent_2002_68
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when a non-designated clerk drafts the court's opinion in a criminal case.
kko-precedent_1991_110
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when lower court alters conviction without oral hearing per Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Raastuvanoikeus oli ratkaissut lapsen elatusavun muuttamista koskevan jutun sen ensikäsittelyssä vastaajan poissa ollessa.

Annetun muutoksenhakuosoituksen mukaisesti vastaaja valitti ratkaisusta hovioikeuteen. Koska raastuvanoikeuden olisi tullut antaa jutussa yksipuolinen tuomio eikä antaa vastaajalle valitusosoituksesta, raastuvanoikeuden virheellinen menettely poistettiin ja juttu palautettiin raastuvanoikeuteen uudelleen käsiteltäväksi ja laillisen ilmoituksen antamiseksi siitä, miten ratkaisuun voidaan hakea muutosta.

OK 12 luku 12 ja 13 §

Läsnä: Koskenniemi - P. Suominen - Hukkanen (apuj.) Esittelijä: Kajanen

Lainvoimainen