Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 3455/1997 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal when judge handling return of judgment was previously involved in original case.

Case Number KKO 3455/1997
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 appeal because the same judge who decided the original debt collection case was also handling the return of judgment proceedings. The court found this created a conflict of interest since the initial decision relied on both substantive and procedural facts. Consequently, the judge was deemed biased and the proceedings were invalid.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Korkein oikeus 10.10.1997 KKO 3455/1997: If the same judge who decided the original case is handling the return of judgment, the judge is considered biased and the proceedings are invalid.

Keywords

AI generated
conflict of interest return of judgment judicial bias debt collection proceedings same judge error

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Korkein oikeus 10.10.1997 KKO 3455/1997
AI generated
kko-precedent_1997_175
Supreme Court allows appeal against default judgment by ruling judge not biased in retrial.
kko-precedent_1997_102
Supreme Court finds judge biased for hearing retrial after previously deciding case unilaterally on same grounds.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2023:82
Supreme Court quarts lower court verdicts due to an ineligible judge lacking required security bond.
kko-precedent_2005_90
Supreme Court rules judge barred from retrial due to prior binding decision on same facts creating bias.
kko-precedent_1999_100
Supreme Court remands debt relief case to lower court to consider new grounds with prior facts as a whole.

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

Käräjätuomari oli käräjäoikeudessa ratkaissut velkomisasian päätöksellä, joka oli perustunut aineellisiin eikä pelkästään menettelyyn liittyviin seikkoihin. Hovioikeuden katsottua kantelun johdosta, että asia olisi tullut ratkaista yksipuolisella tuomiolla ja annettua takaisinsaantiosoituksen käräjäoikeuteen, takaisinsaantiasian käräjäoikeudessa käsitteli ja ratkaisi sama käräjätuomari. Käräjätuomari oli esteellinen takaisinsaantiasiaa käsiteltäessä.