Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 24.01.1984 1942/83 AI generated

Court dismissed claim for illegal TV use fines against state, ruling Post Office lacks standing. Claim based on prior KKO precedent was rejected as lawless.

Case Number Vaasan HO 24.01.1984 1942/83
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The prosecution sought to order the defendant to pay the state an amount equivalent to the license fee for the unauthorized use of a television set. The Post Office and Telecommunications Administration argued they were the proper owners of the claim, but the court rejected this. The decision was grounded in the finding that the prosecution's request lacked a legal basis, distinguishing it from earlier Supreme Court rulings that had allowed similar claims.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 24 of the Penal Code; s. 10 of the Administrative Court Act: The state authority claiming damages for illegal use of a licensed device lacks standing if the specific statutory provision authorizing such a claim is absent, rendering the request inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
unauthorized device use state claim standing license fee recovery administrative law basis penal code damages

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 24 of the Penal Code
s. 10 of the Administrative Court Act

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1971-II-10
KKO:1962-II-61
I-SHO:n päätös T:1661/83, A:30.9.1983
I-SHO:n päätös T:1661/83, A:30.9.1983
AI generated
appeal_1983_turku__1684
Posti- ja telehallitus lacked standing to sue for TV receiver repair without a license when no damage occurred.
appeal_1983_eastern-finland__1661
Court dismissed private prosecution for unauthorized radio device use, ruling Post Office as proper victim.
kko-precedent_1988_51
Supreme Court rules video recorder is a radio device when used with TV, mandating confiscation.
appeal_1983_eastern-finland__983
Court dismissed appeal and transferred copyright infringement case to Helsinki Regional Court for joint trial.
admin_2000_vaasa__513
Administrative court dismissed appeal against inspection fee because TV usage without prior payment notice violated statutory requirements.

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

Virallinen syyttäjä vaati, että televisiolaitteen luvattomasta käyttämisestä rangaistukseen tuomittu henkilö tuomitaan menettämään tuon rikoksen tuottamana taloudellisena hyötynä valtiolle luvatonta käyttöaikaa vastaavat lupamaksut (890 markkaa). Vaatimus hylättiin lakiin perustumattomana.

Posti- ja telehallituksella ei katsottu olevan asianomistajan oikeutta jutussa.

KKO:1971-II-10

KKO:1962-II-61

I-SHO:n päätös T:1661/83, A:30.9.1983

Ailio: Esinekonfiskaatio Suomen rikosoikeudessa, 1964, ss. 44-45, 128-156

IV jaosto.

Lainvoimainen

Lisäys 7.6.1984: KKO on 17.5.1984 antamassaan päätöksessä n:o 728 hyväksynyt vastaavanlaisessa tapauksessa posti- ja telehallituksen radiorahaston hoitajana asianomistajaksi ja velvoittanut vastaajan suorittamaan sille vahingonkorvausta saamatta jääneestä lupamaksusta.