Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 27.8.1998/5920:97 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed claim that employee remained spouse's employer during restructuring, ruling employment ended when spouse lost influence.

Case Number VakO 27.8.1998/5920:97
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 applicant's claim that she continued to be employed by her husband's company following its restructuring. Although the company's operations were not formally terminated, the court found that the external management of the restructuring process effectively removed the applicant's ability to influence the business. Consequently, the court ruled that her employment relationship had ceased on September 7, 1994, despite the lack of formal cessation of operations.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 10.10.1000 of the Insurance Act; An employee's employment relationship with a spouse's company terminates when the spouse loses the ability to influence the company's operations due to external restructuring, even if formal operations continue.

Keywords

AI generated
spousal employment termination company restructuring impact loss of influence employment relationship cessation insurance court decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 10.10.1000 of the Insurance Act
AI generated
labour_2014_67
Labour court dismissed union's appeal against employer's decision to terminate employee's contract due to redundancy.
labour_2012_29
Labor court dismisses union appeal against employer's dismissal but orders damages for failed re-employment efforts.
insurance_2000_3648-1999
Self-employed status under unemployment insurance law bars membership termination due to permanent exit from employment.
insurance_2000_7754-1999
Self-employed status in fluctuating hours bars unemployment insurance membership termination under Finnish law.
insurance_2006_10193-2004
Court allows unemployment benefits by ruling that active job seeking outside the employment office is a valid reason for absence.

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 oli aikaisemmin työllistynyt puolisonsa pääasiallisesti omistamassa osakeyhtiössä. Työsuhde oli irtisanottu yrityksen saneerausmenettelyn aikana päättymään taloudellisista ja tuotannollisista syistä 31.8.1994 saneerausmenettelyn seurauksena määrätyn ulkopuolisen toimitusjohtajan toimesta. Vakuutusoikeus katsoi, että vaikka yrityksen toimintaa ei ollut todistettavasti lopetettu tai todisteellisesti keskeytetty, niin saneerausohjelman seurauksena A:n puolison mahdollisuudet vaikuttaa A:n työllistymiseen yrityksessä olivat siinä määrin muuttuneet, ettei hänen voitu katsoa enää 7.9.1994 lukien työllistyvän puolisonsa yrityksessä. Työttömyysturvalautakunnan päätöstä muutettiin.

Jaosto:VIII Äänestys: