Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:2006:46 AI generated

Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; municipality must provide income support when client resides permanently in another municipality's special care home.

Case Number KHO:2006:46
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal against the lower court's decision regarding income support eligibility. The applicant resided permanently in a small home owned by a municipality in a different county, which had been designated as a special care home under the Care Act for a person with developmental disabilities. The court held that the municipality where the home is located is obligated to grant income support, while the issue of whether the placing municipality must fund protective dental care or adjust social security fees was deemed outside the scope of this specific decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom. 2 kohta; Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §: When a municipality places a client with a developmental disability into a special care home owned by another municipality where the client resides permanently, the latter municipality is obligated to grant income support under the Income Support Act.

Keywords

AI generated
special care home income support obligation developmental disability municipal jurisdiction permanent residence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom. 2 kohta
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom. 2 kohta
Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §
Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §
Laki kehitysvammaisten erityishuollosta
Laki kehitysvammaisten erityishuollosta
Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 11 § (221/2003)
Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 11 § (221/2003)
AI generated
kho-precedent_2006_47
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; municipality of residence must provide income support when client permanently resides in another municipality's facility.
admin_2008_vaasa__252
Administrative court dismisses child's appeal against emergency foster care placement citing child's best interests.
kho-precedent_2006_73
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; municipality must pay child visit and custody hearing travel costs under social aid law.
admin_2016_hameenlinna__35
Emergency placement decision extended indefinitely was invalid but not revoked as placement ended before 30-day limit expired.
kho-precedent_2011_43
Supreme Administrative Court allows residence permit based on family reunification with third-party financial guarantee.

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

Kun kunta oli sijoittanut toimeentulotuen hakijan kehitysvammalain mukaisena erityishuoltona toisessa kunnassa sijaitsevaan erityishuoltopiirin omistamaan pienkotiin siten, että hän oleskeli siellä vakinaisesti, pienkodin sijaintikunta oli velvollinen myöntämään hakijalle toimeentulotukea. Sitä, oliko sijoittajakunnalla velvollisuus toimeentulotuesta annettuun lakiin nähden ensisijaisen lain nojalla järjestää hakijalle proteettinen hammashoito ja vastata hoidon kustannuksista taikka jättää perimättä tai alentaa sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksua, ei päätöksellä voitu ratkaista.

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom. 2 kohta

Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §

Laki kehitysvammaisten erityishuollosta

Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 11 § (221/2003)

Kort referat på svenska

---

[SV]

När en kommun genom specialomsorger om utvecklingsstörda hade placerat utkomststödssökanden i ett hem som specialomsorgsdistriktet ägde i en annan kommun så, att sökanden permanent vistades där, var den kommun där hemmet var beläget skyldig att bevilja sökanden utkomststöd. Med beslutet kunde inte avgöras huruvida den kommun som hade placerat sökanden i hemmet med stöd av en i förhållande till lagen om utkomststöd primär lag var skyldig att ordna protetisk tandvård för sökanden och svara för kostnaderna för denna vård eller att efterskänka en klientavgift inom social- och hälsovården eller bära upp avgiften till nedsatt belopp.