Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
HFD:2006:47 AI generated

Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; municipality of residence must provide income support when client permanently resides in another municipality's facility.

Case Number HFD:2006:47
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 applicant's appeal regarding income support eligibility. The applicant resided permanently in a psychogeriatric facility located in a different municipality than their place of residence, and the court held that the facility's municipality was obligated to grant support. The court ruled that the decision could not address whether the placement municipality should cover extra costs or waive fees under specific social welfare laws.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom. 2 kohta; Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §: When a client permanently resides in a facility in another municipality, that municipality is obligated to grant income support, and the decision cannot determine the placement municipality's liability for extra costs or fee waivers.

Keywords

AI generated
income support eligibility permanent residence facility municipal liability cross-municipal care social welfare law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom. 2 kohta
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom. 2 kohta
Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §
Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §
Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 11 § (221/2003)
Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 11 § (221/2003)
AI generated
kho-precedent_2011_32
Court held involuntary psychiatric hospitalization does not count as residence for benefits purposes, so home municipality must reimburse.
admin_1992_mikkeli-county__56
County court dismissed appeal against social board's refusal of treatment fee commitment for drug rehab.
kho-precedent_2006_46
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; municipality must provide income support when client resides permanently in another municipality's special care home.
admin_2012_kuopio__387
Administrative court dismissed appeal against social services decision regarding care for a developmentally disabled person under specific care law provisions.
admin_2013_helsinki__427
Administrative court upheld mandatory psychiatric hospitalization continuation based on patient's mental state and safety risks.

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 toimeentulotuen hakija oleskeli vakinaisesti kunnan mielenterveystyön ylilääkärin päätöksellä toisessa kunnassa sijaitsevassa psykogeriatrisessa palvelukodissa, palvelukodin sijaintikunta oli velvollinen myöntämään hakijalle toimeentulotukea. Sitä, oliko sijoittajakunnalla velvollisuus toimeentulotuesta annettuun lakiin nähden ensisijaisen lain nojalla vastata sairaalahoidon ja lääkkeiden aiheuttamista ylimääräistä kustannuksista taikka jättää perimättä tai alentaa sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksua, ei päätöksellä voitu ratkaista.

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 § 1 mom. 2 kohta

Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §

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

Kort referat på svenska

---

[SV]

När utkomststödssökanden enligt ett beslut av den överläkare som svarade för mentalvården i kommunen permanent vistades på ett i en annan kommun beläget psykogeriatriskt servicehem, 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 svara för kostnaderna för sjukhusvård och extra medicinutgifter eller att efterskänka en klientavgift inom social- och hälsovården eller bära upp avgiften till nedsatt belopp.