Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 18.12.1997/11385:96 AI generated

Unemployment appeal period starts when claimant receives notice, not when they learn of the decision.

Case Number VakO 18.12.1997/11385:96
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court allowed the appeal, returning the case to the unemployment security board for re-examination. The claimant learned of the decision via a relative's phone call while working abroad, but the law requires formal service of the notice to commence the appeal period. Consequently, the appeal was deemed timely filed because the claimant only returned to Finland after the statutory deadline had passed.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Unemployment Act 1993, s. 10; s. 11: The appeal period commences upon the service of the decision notice to the claimant, not upon the claimant's actual knowledge of the decision's content.

Keywords

AI generated
unemployment appeal period service of notice actual knowledge formal service requirement timely filing Vakuutusoikeus Murmansk region

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Unemployment Act 1993, s. 10
Unemployment Act 1993, s. 11
AI generated
insurance_1999_11827-1997
Court allows social security claim by recognizing continuous residence in Finland despite temporary foreign work.
kho-other_2019_1848
Supreme Administrative Court allows residence permit appeal, overturning lower court dismissal due to lack of evidence for rule circumvention.
insurance_2003_3325-2002
Insurance court dismissed appeal; late filing rejected due to lack of serious reasons for delay.
insurance_2001_2990-2000
Court dismissed claim that intermittent foreign work breaks continuous residence for social security purposes.
insurance_1984_3527-1983
Insurance court dismissed early pension claim as less favorable than unemployment benefit.

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

A:lle, joka oli työssä ulkomaan liikenteessä olevalla aluksella Murmanskin alueella, oli hänen sukulaisensa puhelimitse kertonut työttömyyskassan päätöksen sisällön. A:n ei katsottu tällöin saaneen päätöstä valitusosoituksineen tiedokseen laissa tarkoitetulla tavalla, joten valitusaika alkoi kulua vasta siitä, kun hän oli palannut Suomeen. Valitus katsottu määräajassa saapuneeksi ja asia palautettiin työttömyysturvalautakunnalle uudelleen käsiteltäväksi. VII-jaosto