Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 18.10.1984 1985 AI generated

Court of Appeal ordered investigation of additional charge due to victim's non-prosecution request under RVA 16 § 1.

Case Number Helsingin HO 18.10.1984 1985
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal ordered the investigation of a charge regarding unauthorized use of another person's movable property, which the Public Prosecutor had previously dropped. Although the victim had not requested prosecution for the unauthorized use of the motor vehicle, the court found that the prosecutor was legally obligated to examine this aspect under RVA 16 § 1. Consequently, the court decided to include the additional charge in the investigation to prevent unnecessary delay.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

RVA 16 § 1 momentti; The prosecutor must examine charges dropped due to a victim's non-prosecution request if the law mandates it, ensuring no delay in justice.

Keywords

AI generated
RVA 16 § 1 unauthorized use of property victim's non-prosecution request prosecutor's duty to investigate prevention of delay dropped charges court of appeal ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
RVA 16 § 1 momentti
AI generated
kko-other_2015_670
Supreme Court allows partial prosecution dismissal when prosecutor fails to request review of court's non-prosecution decision.
appeal_1981_eastern-finland__35
Court of Appeal remands case to Court of First Instance for joint trial of crimes committed on same day.
kko-other_2009_2319
Supreme Court allows appeal when lower court wrongly issues default judgment during preparation phase.
kko-other_1998_3079
Supreme Court dismissed appeal regarding appeal court's failure to examine admissibility of complaint under specific procedural rules.
kko-other_1997_1608
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where lower court rejected incomplete complaint without notice due to respondent's possession of full document.

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

Syyttäjä oli vaatinut A:lle rangaistusta yksin teoin tehdyistä moottoriajoneuvon luvattomasta käyttöönottamisesta, rattijuopumuksesta ja liikenteen vaarantamisesta. KO oli jättänyt syytteen tutkimatta luvattoman käyttöönottamisen osalta, koska asianomistaja B ei ollut vaatinut rangaistusta tästä teosta.

HO katsoi, että RVA 16 § 1 momentin säännös huomioon ottaen KO:n olisi tullut tutkia syyte myös tältä osin ja viivytyksen välttämiseksi otti tutkittavakseen myös toisen irtaimen omaisuuden luvatonta käyttämistä koskevan syytteen.

Kirjallisuutta: Veikko Reinikainen: Jutun palauttamisesta, s. 117-118, Vammala 1956.

Läsnä: M.J.L. - I.N. - P.K. (apuj.). Esittelijä: Laukkanen.

Lainvoimainen