Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 04.12.1985 940 AI generated

Court dismissed appeal for separate review of partial dismissal of related civil claims under Finnish Civil Procedure Code.

Case Number Helsingin HO 04.12.1985 940
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, ruling that a party cannot separately request a review of a decision that partially dismissed related claims during the original proceedings. The appellant argued for separate examination of specific claim components, but the court held that the lower court's partial dismissal was a procedural outcome of the connected case. Consequently, the appeal was rejected because the statutory provisions do not permit isolated challenges to partial rulings in this context.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

OK 16 luku 3 § 2 mom.; OK 25 luku 2 § 2 mom.: A party cannot separately request a review of a decision that partially dismissed related claims during the original proceedings.

Keywords

AI generated
partial dismissal related claims separate review appeal admissibility civil procedure procedural outcome connected case

Cited Legislation

AI generated
OK 16 luku 3 § 2 mom.
OK 16 luku 3 § 2 mom. ja OK 25 luku 2 § 2 mom.
OK 25 luku 2 § 2 mom.
ja OK 25 luku 2 § 2 mom.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1936-II-42
AI generated
kko-precedent_1991_44
Supreme Court allows appeal against partial dismissal when court failed to inform parties of separate appeal rights.
kko-other_2016_2061
Supreme Court dismisses appeal due to withdrawal and death of second appellant, halting proceedings.
appeal_1983_kouvola__140
Appeal dismissed because interim court ruling on stay of proceedings is not appealable under general rules.
kko-precedent_2010_83
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when defendant files counter-appeal instead of appeal after extension. Defendant filed a counter-appeal instead of an appeal, and the Supreme Court held that because the counter-appeal was the only valid option available to the defendant, the prosecutor and victim could not file a counter-appeal against it.
kko-other_2020_1660
Supreme Court dismisses appeal, upholding lower courts' rejection of asylum claimant's request to cancel deportation order.

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

Alioikeuden oikeudenkäynnin aikana antamaan ratkaisuun, jolla kanne, jonka eri osat olivat asiallisessa yhteydessä toisiinsa, oli osittain jätetty tutkimatta, ei saanut erikseen hakea muutosta. Valitusosoitus poistettiin ja muutoksenhakemus jätettiin tutkittavaksi ottamatta.

OK 16 luku 3 § 2 mom. ja OK 25 luku 2 § 2 mom.

Ks. KKO:1936-II-42

Ellilä, DL 1939 s. 393 alav. 30 sekä Oikeudenkäynti ja täytäntöönpano (1965) s. 72

Tirkkonen, Rikosprosessioikeus II (1972) s. 496, Siviiliprosessioikeus

II (1977) s. 387

Wrede-Palmgren, Civilprocessrätt I (1953) s. 328

Reinikainen, Jutun palauttamisesta s. 225

Läsnä: Hiltunen, Kalliokoski ja Tornivuori Esittelijä: Jakonen

Lainvoimainen