Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 28.3.1984/540:83 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed farmer's claim to return half pension due to alleged failure to reside on farm.

Case Number VakO 28.3.1984/540:83
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court dismissed the farmer's request to recover half of his generational pension capital. The farmer argued he fulfilled his duty by living on the farm or in his wife's rental property nearby while working in her business. The court rejected this, ruling that the statutory requirement for residence on the farm or its immediate vicinity was not met by living several kilometers away.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Insurance Act 1983; Generational pension Act 1983: Residence on the farm or its immediate vicinity is a strict condition for receiving a generational pension, and living in a nearby rental property does not satisfy this obligation.

Keywords

AI generated
generational pension residence requirement farm duty pension capital insurance court eligibility criteria nearby residence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Insurance Act 1983
Generational pension Act 1983
AI generated
insurance_1986_3146-1985
Farming family's right to reside on land for 5 years before transfer was upheld against relocation order.
insurance_1984_1690-1983
Insurance court denied spousal succession pension due to lack of permanent residence on the farm.
insurance_1984_4370-1982
Insurance court allowed pension claim where recipients lived near farmland without livestock, deemed farming activity.
insurance_1984_2954-1984
Insurance court dismissed claim for permanent residence status due to insufficient year-round farming activity.
insurance_1998_6040-1997
Child qualifies for family pension after father's death despite short residence due to family relocation.

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

Viljelijä oli isänsä sukupolvenvaihdoseläkkeen yhteydessä sitoutunut tilalla tai sen välittömässä läheisyydessä asuen viljelemään tilaa vähintään 5 vuoden ajan 1.8.1976 lukien. Hän oli asunut vuoroin tilalla, jossa myös hänen isänsä asui, ja vuoroin n. 5 km päässä tilalta tulevan vaimonsa vuokra-asunnossa työskennellen myös vaimonsa liikeyrityksessä. Hänet oli henkikirjoitettu tilalla asuvaksi ja avioliitto oli solmittu vuonna 1980. VAKO katsoi, että viljelijä oli siinä määrin laiminlyönyt asumisvelvollisuuttaan, että häneltä oli perittävä takaisin puolet sukupolvenvaihdoseläkkeen pääoma-arvosta. Eläkelautakunnan päätöstä muutettiin. VI -jaosto