Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 955/2006 AI generated

Supreme Court allows state to pay legal costs when lower court dismisses charges despite initial conviction finding.

Case Number KKO 955/2006
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appellant's claim for state reimbursement of legal costs. Although the lower court initially convicted the appellant of assault but exempted him from punishment due to emergency self-defense, the appeal focused solely on cost recovery. The Court ruled that since the prosecution was ultimately dismissed, the state must bear the litigation expenses.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ROL 9 luku 1 a §; The state is obligated to reimburse legal costs when a prosecution is dismissed, even if the lower court previously found the defendant guilty of the charged offense but exempted them from punishment.

Keywords

AI generated
state legal costs dismissed prosecution emergency self-defense criminal procedure costs Supreme Court ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ROL 9 luku 1 a §
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KKO:2018:33
Supreme Court allows appeal against High Court's annulment of sentence under procedural code section 31.9a.
kko-precedent_2003_14
Supreme Court quashes fine for absence due to lawful prison detention and denies state reimbursement of legal costs.
kko-precedent_2002_62
Supreme Court quashes prosecution order due to new evidence of innocence and awards state compensation for legal costs.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2023:13
Supreme Court dismisses judge's request to quash a summary trial verdict for a serious gun crime where the defendant waived oral proceedings.
kko-other_2020_1651
Supreme Court dismisses appeal and remands case regarding refusal of asylum seeker's appeal against deportation order.

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

Käräjäoikeus luki A:n syyksi pahoinpitelyn, mutta katsoi hänen toimineen hätävarjelutilanteessa ja jätti hänet rangaistukseen tuomitsematta. A:n valitus hovioikeuteen ei koskenut syyksilukemista, vaan vain valtion velvollisuutta korvata hänen oikeudenkäyntikulunsa. Koska syytettä ei ollut hylätty, hovioikeus katsoi, ettei A:lla ollut oikeutta saada kulujaan korvatuiksi valtion varoista. Käräjäoikeuden tuomio purettiin siltä osalta kuin vastaajan syyksi oli luettu syytteessä tarkoitettu teko, ja syyte hylättiin. Valtio velvoitettiin korvaamaan A:n oikeudenkäyntikulut asiassa.

ROL 9 luku 1 a §