Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 1825/2011 KI-generiert

Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding High Court's procedural error in removing child support obligation entirely.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 1825/2011
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the High Court's decision to remove all child support obligations from the father. The lower court had overturned a district court ruling that required the father to pay support, citing a change in circumstances. The Supreme Court found the High Court's procedural handling of the evidence and legal arguments insufficient to justify the total removal of the obligation.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Lapsilain 101. luku; 102. luku: The High Court's decision to entirely remove child support obligations without proper procedural justification is legally flawed and must be corrected.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
child support obligation High Court procedure family law appeal alimony removal Supreme Court review Härtefallgründe Asylgesuch eines äthiopischen Staatsangehörigen Anspruch auf einen Entscheid

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Lapsilain 101. luku
Lapsilain 102. luku
KI-generiert
kko-precedent_1995_79
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where lower court relied on new evidence without requesting defendant's response.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__766
Court upheld conviction for aggravated assault, rejecting reformatio in peius request despite new evidence of life-threatening injury.
kko-precedent_2011_30
Supreme Court remands appeal to High Court for retrial due to procedural error excluding defendant despite lawyer's presence.
kko-precedent_2002_107
Supreme Court allows defense lawyer fees when appeal challenges clear oral evidence in criminal case.
kko-precedent_1996_134
Supreme Court remands case for oral hearing due to conflicting testimonies and defendant's right to defense.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Käräjäoikeus oli määrännyt A:n ja B:n yhteisistä lapsista kolme asumaan A:n luona ja velvoittanut B:n suorittamaan heille elatusapua. B tyytyi päätökseen. A valitti hovioikeuteen vaatien muun muassa elatusavun korottamista. Hovioikeus muutti käräjäoikeuden päätöstä siten, ettei B:tä velvoitettu suorittamaan lainkaan elatusapua lapsille. Kysymys hovioikeuden menettelyn oikeellisuudesta.