Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 28.10.2025/696:2024 (L) AI generated

Insurance court allowed appeal regarding legal standing of client versus lawyer in criminal damage cost claims.

Case Number VakO 28.10.2025/696:2024 (L)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court allowed the appeal filed by the client against the State Office's decision on reasonable costs under the Criminal Damage Act. Although the decision was served on the client's lawyer and costs were paid to the lawyer, the court determined the decision legally targeted the client. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal for examination based on the client's statutory right to appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Rikosvahinkolain 29 § 1 momentti; hallintoasialain mukainen päätöksen kohdistaminen: When a decision is legally directed at a party despite service to their representative, that party retains the right to appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal damage costs legal standing appeal service of decision client versus lawyer administrative law target

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Criminal Damage Act 2005, Section 29(1)
Administrative Procedure Act, Section 10
AI generated
insurance_1999_6578-1998
Court held that criminal damage compensation law covers only application costs, not appeal costs against administrative decisions.
kko-precedent_2014_77
Supreme Court dismisses appeal filed by a qualified lawyer without counsel due to procedural rule violation.
appeal_1985_helsinki__547
Court dismisses appeal when applicant withdraws housing request after alleging fraudulent inducement to sign power of attorney.
admin_1999_water-superior__74
Administrative court dismisses request for free trial because applicant is not a party to the proceedings.
kho-precedent_2014_179
Supreme Administrative Court allows interpreter costs for delivering a decision when not covered in main proceedings.

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 hakenut muutosta Valtiokonttorin päätökseen, joka oli koskenut A:n asiamiehelle rikosvahinkolain nojalla kohtuullisena korvauksena maksettavia hakemuskuluja. Päätös oli lähetetty sekä A:lle että A:n asiamiehelle valitusosoituksineen. Asiamiehelle osoitetussa päätöksessä hakijaksi oli ilmoitettu A. Siitä huolimatta, että hakemuskulu oli maksettu A:n asiamiehelle, vakuutusoikeus katsoi rikosvahinkolain 29 §:n 1 momentin sanamuotokin huomioon ottaen, että päätös oli kohdistettu A:han oikeudenkäynnistä hallintoasioissa annetun lain mukaisesti ja A:lla oli valitusoikeus päätöksestä. Vakuutusoikeus otti valituksen tutkittavaksi.