Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 9.6.1995/2400:94 AI generated

Insurance Court held two-year limitation period for negligence crime compensation starts when guardian learns of the crime.

Case Number VakO 9.6.1995/2400:94
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court dismissed the defendant's argument that the claim was time-barred, ruling the two-year limitation period began only when the guardian received notice of the crime. Since no evidence showed the guardian knew earlier, the court deemed the crime occurred at the time of the report in October 1992. Consequently, the claim submitted in February 1994 was found to be within the statutory limit, and the original decision was overturned.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Rikosvahinkolain 10 luku; kahden vuoden määräaika rikosvahinkolain mukaisen korvauksen hakemiseen alkaa kulua vasta holhoojan saavuttua rikoksesta tiedon.

Keywords

AI generated
insurance crime compensation statute of limitations guardian notice requirement negligence crime claim Vakuutusoikeus jurisdiction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Rikosvahinkolain 10 luku
AI generated
insurance_1995_4488-1994
Insurance court allows late criminal damage claim due to victim's minority and special circumstances.
insurance_2004_7840-2002
Permanent impairment compensation denied when prosthetic use does not cause significant functional disability.
insurance_1994_3910-1993
Statute of limitations for fraud claims begins when the victim files a criminal report, not at the crime's occurrence.
insurance_2004_4589-2002
Insurance court allows loss of income claim for self-employed business owner injured by crime under Criminal Damage Act.
insurance_1992_284-1992
Insurance court dismissed delayed compensation claim citing police investigation delay as insufficient special reason under RIVL 15.

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

Alaikäiseen kohdistuneen siveellisyysrikoksen kohdalla katsottiin, että rikosvahinkolain mukaisen korvauksen hakemiseen säädetty kahden vuoden määräaika alkoi kulua vasta siitä, kun holhooja sai rikoksesta tiedon. Kun asiassa ei ollut muuta näytetty, tämän oli katsottava tapahtuneen rikosilmoituksen tekoaikaan 29.10.1992. Valtiokonttoriin 2.2.1994 saapunut hakemus oli näin ollen tehty määräajassa. Valtiokonttorin päätös kumottiin ja asia palautettiin uudelleen käsiteltäväksi. II-jaosto