Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 12.5.1982/6263:81 AI generated

Insurance court allowed pension reinstatement when special circumstances existed despite prior suspension.

Case Number VakO 12.5.1982/6263:81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court reinstated the mother's generational change pension effective March 1, 1980, reversing the Social Insurance Institution's suspension. The parents had sold their farm to their son in 1975 and received a pension, but repurchased it in 1980 when the son became incapacitated by illness. The court determined that special circumstances justified the pension's continuation, overriding the initial decision to stop payments.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Social Insurance Act; Generational Change Pension Act: A generational change pension may be reinstated if special circumstances exist that justify its continuation, even if previously suspended due to the recipient's inability to work.

Keywords

AI generated
generational change pension special circumstances pension reinstatement social insurance law farm ownership illness incapacity pension suspension

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Social Insurance Act
Generational Change Pension Act
AI generated
insurance_1981_5318-1980
Insurance court dismissed pension claim adjustment due to lack of new medical evidence proving disability onset.
insurance_2008_3883-2007
Insurance court dismissed appeal on jurisdiction grounds for deceased's heir's personal liability and upheld pension recovery.
insurance_1978_8866-1976
Insurance court dismissed pension decision removal and rejected recovery of undue benefit due to erroneous consolidation.
insurance_1982_3119-1981
Insurance court denied early pension start date shift due to continued farm management by buyer.
insurance_1981_5629-1980
Insurance court rules death benefit claims must follow current law if insured dies before claim resolution.

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

Isäntä ja emäntä olivat vuonna 1975 myyneet tilansa pojalleen, minkä jälkeen he olivat saaneet sukupolvenvaihdoseläkettä. Vuonna 1980 he olivat ostaneet tilan takaisin pojaltaan, joka oli tullut tilanpitoon sairauden vuoksi kykenemättömäksi. MELA lakkautti emännän sukupolvenvaihdoseläkkeen 1.3.1980 lukien, koska erityisiä syitä eläkkeen edelleen maksamiseen ei ollut olemassa. Isäntä oli jo ennen takaisin ostoa täyttänyt vanhuuseläkeiän. VAKO: Koska esitetyn selvityksen perusteella oli ollut olemassa erityinen syy emännän sukupolvenvaihdoseläkkeen maksamiseen, sukupolvenvaihdoseläke määrättiin maksaettavaksi täysimääräisenä edelleen 1.3.1980 lukien. Eläkelautakunnan päätöstä muutettiin. II -jaosto