Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:2008:28 AI generated

Supreme Administrative Court dismisses inter-municipal claim for interest on child protection costs due to lack of legal basis.

Case Number KHO:2008:28
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 a municipality's claim for interest on child protection costs owed by another municipality. The court found no legal basis for interest in the Interest Act, child protection Act, social services Act, or relevant case law regarding inter-municipal debt disputes. Consequently, the claim was rejected because neither statute nor established judicial practice created an obligation to pay interest in this specific context.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Korkolaki 1 § 2 mom.; Lastensuojelulaki 45 §; Sosiaalihuoltolaki 42 §; Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §: No obligation to pay interest exists on inter-municipal child protection cost claims absent specific statutory authorization or established case law precedent.

Keywords

AI generated
inter-municipal debt interest claim dismissal child protection costs statutory interest obligation social services liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Korkolaki 1 § 2 mom.
Lastensuojelulaki 45 §
Sosiaalihuoltolaki 42 §
Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §
Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §
AI generated
kko-precedent_1988_78
Supreme Court rules public legal aid fees are not public debt interest cases but private debt subject to interest law.
admin_1990_oulu-county__957
Administrative court dismissed interest claim against municipality for public law debt exceeding statutory rate.
kko-other_2018_1055
Supreme Court allows delayed interest from three months after judgment under KML 203 and KorkoL 4.
admin_1992_water-superior__35
Administrative court orders 16% delay interest on damages claim for unauthorized water diversion.
admin_1994_central-finland-county__147
Court dismissed claim for interest on overpaid daycare fees as no legal basis exists for such interest.

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

Kuntien välisessä lastensuojelukustannusten korvaamista koskevassa riidassa hylättiin vaatimus koron maksamisesta kunnan saatavalle. Viivästyskoron maksamista ei voitu perustaa korkolakiin eikä lastensuojelukustannuksia koskeviin erityislakeihin eikä vastaavanlaisia saatavia koskevissa kuntien välisissä maksuriidoissa ollut oikeuskäytännössäkään muodostunut koronmaksuvelvollisuutta koskevaa periaatetta. Toimeentulokustannusten osalta kunnan vaatimus hylättiin myös perusteiltaan. Koron osalta äänestys 4-1.

Korkolaki 1 § 2 mom.

Lastensuojelulaki 45 §

Sosiaalihuoltolaki 42 §

Laki toimeentulotuesta 14 §

---

[SV]

I en tvist mellan två kommuner om ersättning av barnskyddskostnader avslogs den ena kommunens yrkande om att få ränta på sin fordran. Någon skyldighet att betala dröjsmålsränta kunde inte härledas ur räntelagen eller de speciallagar som reglerade barnskyddskostnader och någon princip om skyldighet att betala ränta hade inte heller utformats i den rättspraxis som gällde betalningstvister mellan kommunerna. Kommunens yrkande om att få ersättning för de kostnader som kommunen hade haft för utkomststöd avslogs också med hänvisning till att det saknade grund. Omröstning om räntan 4-1.

Räntelagen 1 § 2 mom.

Barnskyddslagen (683/1983) 45 § (139/1990)

Socialvårdslagen 42 §

Lagen om utkomststöd 14 §