Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 218/2006 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses company's execution claim for ownership of seized assets due to procedural delay.

Case Number KKO 218/2006
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 company's execution claim because the lower court failed to examine the appeal due to late filing. The company argued ownership of seized assets without providing evidence, while the opposing party contested the lack of proof. The court ruled that the procedural defect precluded the examination of the substantive ownership question.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Execution Act s. 10; Execution Act s. 11: A court must examine an execution claim even if filed late, but failure to do so due to procedural error results in dismissal of the claim.

Keywords

AI generated
execution claim ownership dispute procedural delay seized assets lower court error

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Execution Act s. 10
Execution Act s. 11
AI generated
kko-other_2007_1209
Supreme Court held that a final enforcement judgment in a separate debt collection case is binding in a new debt collection proceeding.
kko-precedent_1989_41
Supreme Court extends filing deadline for third-party ownership claim in enforcement proceedings to start from its own decision date.
kko-precedent_2003_132
Final ruling in one enforcement proceeding does not bind a third party in a separate enforcement proceeding regarding the same property.
kho-precedent_2004_56
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses legal aid office's appeal as it lacks standing under administrative procedure law.
kko-precedent_2002_94
Supreme Court dismisses request to extend deadline for challenging a partition deed under procedural law.

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

Yhtiö oli valittanut ulosmittauksesta sillä perusteella, että se omisti velallisen veloista ulosmitatun omaisuuden. Käräjäoikeus oli jättänyt valituksen myöhään saapuneena tutkimatta. Tämän jälkeen yhtiö nosti ilman osoitusta täytäntöönpanoriitakanteen, jossa se muun ohella vaati vahvistettavaksi, että se omistaa ulosmitatun omaisuuden. Kysymys siitä, voitiinko kanne tutkia.