Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 17.2.2000/9077:98 AI generated

Unemployment benefits allowed for intermittent work by a self-employed employee of a family company.

Case Number VakO 17.2.2000/9077:98
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Unemployment Insurance Court modified the Unemployment Security Board's decision to grant unemployment benefits to a son working intermittently for his father's company. The applicant argued that as a self-employed employee, his work did not require continuous interruption for four months to qualify. The court ruled in favor of the applicant, establishing that such intermittent work patterns are permissible for self-employed employees seeking benefits.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Unemployment Security Act; Unemployment Insurance Act: Unemployment benefits may be granted to self-employed employees whose work is not continuously interrupted for four months.

Keywords

AI generated
unemployment security self-employed employee intermittent work family company benefit eligibility

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Unemployment Security Act
Unemployment Insurance Act
AI generated
admin_1992_uusimaa-county__1241
Court dismissed unemployment benefit claim as income when recipient refused offered work.
insurance_2006_10193-2004
Court allows unemployment benefits by ruling that active job seeking outside the employment office is a valid reason for absence.
insurance_2001_1402-2000
Court allowed unemployment benefits by ruling seasonal business due to weather does not break continuous employment requirement.
insurance_2002_10516-2000
Court dismissed unemployment claim where part-time work averaged 18 hours weekly but failed periodical work requirements for smoothing periods.
insurance_2002_3335-2001
Court allows unemployment benefits when vocational training completion is voluntary and not a mandatory prerequisite for a final exam.

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 kotona asuvan poikansa omistaman osakeyhtiön työntekijänä tehnyt yhdelle toimeksiantajalle, maaseutukeskukselle, ympäristönhoito-ohjelmia maaseutukeskuksen antamien osoitetietojen pohjalta. A haki työttömyyspäivärahaa työjaksojen välisiltä ajoilta. Koska kysymys oli palkansaajan rinnastettavasta yrittäjästä, päivärahan saaminen ei edellyttänyt, että toiminnan olisi tullut olla yhdenjaksoisesti keskeytyneenä neljän kuukauden ajan. Työttömyysturvalautakunnan päätöstä muutettiin.

Jaosto:V Äänestys: