Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1546/2012 AI generated

Defendant not liable for costs of adjourned trial when interpreter need was not voluntarily reported.

Case Number KKO 1546/2012
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Finland dismissed the claim for costs incurred due to the adjournment of the main trial. The defendant failed to voluntarily inform the court of the need for an interpreter before the trial, causing a delay in proceedings. Consequently, the court held that the defendant was not obligated to compensate other parties for the resulting expenses.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

ROL 9 luku 2 §; ROL 6 a luku 2 §: A defendant is not liable for costs arising from an adjournment caused by the lack of an interpreter if the need for interpretation was not voluntarily reported to the court prior to the trial.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal procedure costs voluntary notification duty interpreter necessity trial adjournment liability compensation for delay

Cited Legislation

AI generated
ROL 9 luku 2 §
ROL 6 a luku 2 §
AI generated
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__1337
Court dismisses claim for interpreter fees when defendant fails to prove necessity under language law.
kko-other_1997_3030
Supreme Court allows oral damage claims in criminal proceedings as they are admissible under Finnish law.
kko-other_1996_346
Supreme Court dismissed appeal regarding state's liability for litigation costs when opposing party is a public authority.
kko-other_2004_2555
Supreme Court dismisses claim for witness costs when witness hearing is deemed unnecessary for case resolution.
kko-other_2003_361
Supreme Court dismisses claim for state reimbursement of defense lawyer fees and costs in criminal proceedings.

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 oli joutunut peruuttamaan rikosasian pääkäsittelyn, koska vastaajan ja tämän kutsuman todistajan tarvitsemaa tulkkausta ei ollut järjestetty eikä sellaista ollut heti saatavilla.

Kysymys siitä, oliko vastaaja velvollinen korvaamaan muille asianosaisille peruuntuneesta pääkäsittelystä aiheutuneet kustannukset, kun hän ei ollut ennen pääkäsittelyä oma-aloitteisesti ilmoittanut käräjäoikeudelle tulkkauksen tarpeest

ROL 9 luku 2 §

ROL 6 a luku 2 §