Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 14.04.1983 311/83 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; defendant's domicile at time of service determines competent court, not current residence.

Case Number Vaasan HO 14.04.1983 311/83
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 regarding the validity of a summons served on the defendant's husband. The husband had moved to a different court district after receiving the summons, but the lower court correctly identified the court of the district where he resided at the time of service as the competent venue. The court ruled that procedural jurisdiction is fixed based on the defendant's location when the legal document was delivered, not their subsequent residence.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Lainvoimainen tuomio: The court of the district where the defendant resided at the time of service is the competent court; subsequent relocation does not alter jurisdiction.

Keywords

AI generated
civil procedure jurisdiction domicile service of process competent court procedural defect appeal dismissal
AI generated
kko-other_2006_2787
Supreme Court dismisses damages claims barred by final prior judgments on same legal issues.
kko-other_1997_3455
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when judge handling return of judgment was previously involved in original case.
kko-precedent_1997_175
Supreme Court allows appeal against default judgment by ruling judge not biased in retrial.
kko-other_2024_1270
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding one-sided judgment notification requirements for granting further stay of execution permission.
kko-precedent_1988_17
Supreme Court allows treating prior final judgment acts as part of a continued crime under Criminal Code Section 7.8.

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

Osituksen moitetta koskevassa jutussa vastaajana ollut aviomies oli haasteen tiedoksiannon jälkeen muuttanut toiseen tuomiopiiriin, jossa hän vakinaisesti asui siihen aikaan, kun asia otettiin ensi kerran oikeudessa käsiteltäväksi. Laillisena tuomioistuimena pidettiin sen paikkakunnan alioikeutta, jonka tuomiopiirissä vastaaja vakinaisesti asui haasteen tiedoksiantohetkellä.

Ks. Tirkkonen: Suomen siviiliprosessioikeus I, 1961, s. 271-272, 570-572

Reinikainen: Prosessin edellytyksen puuttumisen oikeusseuraamuksista, 1958, s. 70

Lainvoimainen