KKO 403/2007
AI generated
Supreme Court dismissed appeal where lower court lacked supplementary evidence submitted by appellant.
Finland (FI)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal because the lower court could not consider supplementary evidence submitted after the case was closed. The appellant argued that new documents were necessary for a fair trial, but the court found the submission procedurally untimely. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as the lower court acted within its authority by excluding late material.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedKorkein oikeus 10.1.1996 100/1996; 10.1.1996 101/1996: When supplementary evidence is submitted after the case is closed, the lower court is not bound to consider it, and the appeal based on this omission is inadmissible.
Keywords
AI generated
procedural time limits
supplementary evidence
closed case
appeal admissibility
lower court authority
Cited Legislation
AI generated10.1.1996 100/1996
10.1.1996 101/1996
Related Decisions
AI generatedkko-precedent_1995_46
Supreme Court allows appeal against default judgment for failure to issue single-party judgment when defendant absent.
kko-precedent_2007_10
Supreme Court quashes appeal court verdict for failing to hear victim personally in criminal trial.
kko-other_2012_823
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where court president lacked authority to preside over the case.
kko-precedent_1995_44
Supreme Court dismisses High Court's order to gather evidence for prosecution, citing ECHR Art. 6 equality of arms. High Court's decision to order supplementary investigation for prosecution violated fair trial principles. The court ruled that the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering. The High Court's order to gather evidence for the prosecution violated the equality of arms principle under ECHR Article 6. The Supreme Court found the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering. The High Court's order to gather evidence for the prosecution violated the equality of arms principle under ECHR Article 6. The Supreme Court found the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering. The High Court's order to gather evidence for the prosecution violated the equality of arms principle under ECHR Article 6. The Supreme Court found the High Court should have decided the case without remanding for evidence gathering.
kko-other_1996_4764
Supreme Court allows oral hearing request when trial facts are significantly different from defendant's prior statements.
Full text
Kysymys hovioikeuden menettelystä, kun valittajan hovioikeuteen toimittama lisäselvitys ei ollut ratkaisua tehtäessä käsillä.