Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 1512/2012 KI-generiert

Supreme Court dismisses appeal where lower court failed to record all oral testimony as required by law.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 1512/2012
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court of Finland dismissed the appeal against a decision by the Land Court regarding a property dispute. The Land Court had failed to record all oral testimony in accordance with the mandatory recording requirements of the Act on the Conduct of Court Proceedings. The Court ruled that this procedural defect did not affect the outcome of the case because the written evidence was sufficient to establish the facts.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Act on the Conduct of Court Proceedings, Chapter 22, Section 6; The failure to record all oral testimony does not invalidate the proceedings if the written evidence is sufficient to determine the case.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
procedural defect oral testimony recording court proceedings act property dispute appeal dismissal evidence sufficiency land court mangelnder Befangenheitsbeweis

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Act on the Conduct of Court Proceedings, Chapter 22, Section 6
KI-generiert
kko-other_2009_648
Supreme Court dismissed appeal regarding failure to submit property determination request to first instance court.
kko-precedent_2011_45
Supreme Court remands case for retrial due to insufficient assessment of significant harm to neighbor's property from road relocation.
kko-other_2006_2788
Supreme Court dismissed appeal regarding High Court's duty to transfer main proceedings to Administrative Court.
kko-other_2003_625
Supreme Court dismissed appeal; land court erred by binding a third party without notice.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2018:82
Supreme Court holds neighbor is party to easement if significant environmental impacts affect their property rights.

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

Maaoikeus ei ollut oikeudenkäymiskaaren 22 luvun 6 §:n mukaisesti äänittänyt kaikkea suullista todistelua. Kysymys mainitun menettelyvirheen vaikutuksesta asian ratkaisemiseen. Kysymys myös maaoikeuden menettelystä katselmusta toimitettaessa.