Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1834/1997 AI generated

Supreme Court held customs authority lacked jurisdiction to decide on security measures for trademark infringement cases.

Case Number KKO 1834/1997
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request regarding the jurisdiction of customs authorities over security measures. The applicant had submitted a trademark infringement case to the courts after customs detained goods under EU Regulation 3295/94. The court ruled that deciding on security measures falls outside the customs authority's competence and belongs to the judicial system.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Regulation 3295/94, Article 6; Regulation 3295/94, Article 7: The customs authority lacks jurisdiction to decide on security measures; such decisions must be made by the judicial authorities.

Keywords

AI generated
customs authority jurisdiction security measures decision trademark infringement case EU Regulation 3295/94 competence division judicial review scope goods detention procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Regulation 3295/94, Article 6
Regulation 3295/94, Article 7

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1997:72
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; customs seizure under EU regulation remains valid until final court ruling.
AI generated
kko-precedent_1997_72
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; customs seizure under EU regulation remains valid until final court ruling.
kko-other_2005_2477
Customs duty liability ceases when seized goods are confiscated; seizure constitutes the required control measure under customs code.
kho-precedent_2010_45
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed VAT refund request due to lack of legal certainty and missed appeal deadlines.
kho-other_2026_1623
Supreme Administrative Court allows customs official's appeal, upholding seizure of ATV under EU sanctions.
market_2018_320
Market Court dismisses preservation request as no unreasoned use of confidential technical data is proven.

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

Tullihallituksen päätöksen perusteella asianomainen tullitoimipaikka oli Euroopan unionin neuvoston asetuksen 3295/94, niin sanotun tuoteväärennösasetuksen, 6 artiklan nojalla pidättänyt tavaroita tullivalvontaan. Kantaja oli saman asetuksen 7 artiklan mukaisesti saattanut tavaramerkin loukkausta koskevan asian tuomioistuimen ratkaistavaksi. Kysymys siitä, minkä viranomaisen toimivaltaan kuului turvaamistoimista päättäminen. Lausunnon antaminen raukesi.

Ks. KKO:1997:72