Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Rovaniemen HO 22.10.1985 1403/85 AI generated

Official prosecutor's duty to monitor public prosecution is not fulfilled by a dismissal decision made during preliminary investigation.

Case Number Rovaniemen HO 22.10.1985 1403/85
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 complaint regarding the lower court's failure to summon the official prosecutor. Although the prosecutor had already decided not to prosecute, the lower court proceeded without hearing them on the charges of violating work safety laws and causing death. The court ruled that the prosecutor's statutory duty to monitor public prosecution is not satisfied by a dismissal decision issued during the preliminary investigation phase.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

RVA 15 §:n 1 momentin mukaan virallinen syyttäjä on velvollinen valvomaan julkista kannevaltaa; Tämä valvontavelvollisuus ei toteudu virallisen syyttäjän esitutkinnan yhteydessä tekemä päätös syyttämättä jättämisestä.

Keywords

AI generated
official prosecutor duty public prosecution monitoring preliminary investigation dismissal decision summons requirement work safety laws causing death

Cited Legislation

AI generated
RVA 15 § 1 momentti
AI generated
kko-precedent_1995_44
Supreme Court dismisses High Court's order to gather evidence for prosecution, citing ECHR Art. 6 equality of arms. High Court's decision to order supplementary investigation for prosecution violated fair trial principles. The court ruled that the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering. The High Court's order to gather evidence for the prosecution violated the equality of arms principle under ECHR Article 6. The Supreme Court found the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering. The High Court's order to gather evidence for the prosecution violated the equality of arms principle under ECHR Article 6. The Supreme Court found the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering. The High Court's order to gather evidence for the prosecution violated the equality of arms principle under ECHR Article 6. The Supreme Court found the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering.
kko-precedent_2016_90
Supreme Court dismisses judge's appeal for refusing to issue judgments due to unproven perceived bias by prosecutors.
kko-precedent_1996_139
Supreme Court allows appeal on secondary charge despite prosecutor not initially requesting it in response.
kko-precedent_2000_126
Supreme Court dismisses appeal to revoke acquittal for negligent homicide due to lack of practical benefit from new evidence.
kko-precedent_1991_145
Supreme Court remands criminal case for retrial due to failure to question a co-conspirator witness.

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

RVA 15 §:n 1 momentin mukaan virallinen syyttäjä on velvollinen valvomaan julkista kannevaltaa asianomistajan ajaessa syytettä virallisen syytteen alaisesta rikoksesta. Tätä valvontavelvollisuutta ei toteuta virallisen syyttäjän esitutkinnan yhteydessä tekemä päätös syyttämättä jättämisestä.

Kun alioikeus oli ratkaissut jutun, jossa asianomistaja oli vaatinut rangaistusta työturvallisuuslain säännösten rikkomisesta ja kuolemantuottamuksesta, varaamatta viralliselle syyttäjälle tilaisuutta tulla jutussa kuulluksi, juttu palautettiin alioikeuteen huolimatta siitä, että virallinen syyttäjä oli tehnyt asiassa syyttämättäjättämispäätöksen.

Lainvoimainen