Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1616/2012 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal when legal interest in challenging lower court decision ceases to exist.

Case Number KKO 1616/2012
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 appeal because the appellants no longer possessed a legal interest in challenging the Court of Appeal's decision. The lower court had rejected the request to release the court-appointed lawyers from their duties, and the appellants subsequently sought leave to appeal. The court ruled that without a continuing legal interest, the proceedings for the appeal must terminate.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Oikeudenkäyntiasiamiehet 1990-luvun luvuilla; when a party loses the legal interest to challenge a final decision, the appeal proceedings must cease.

Keywords

AI generated
legal interest cessation of proceedings court-appointed lawyer final decision supreme court appeal
AI generated
kko-precedent_2000_115
Supreme Court dismisses prosecutor's appeal as coercive detention law prohibits appeals by the requesting party.
kko-other_2018_448
Supreme Court allows state to reimburse defendant's court costs when prosecution and victim withdraw charges.
appeal_1981_eastern-finland__65
Court upheld guardianship decision against appeal, citing lack of need for public notice.
appeal_1979_turku__1145
Court dismissed appeal on free legal aid, transferring case to proper jurisdiction due to procedural error.
appeal_1981_kouvola__322
Appeal dismissed; orderman lacked valid ID, so conviction for violent resistance was upheld.

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

Oikeudenkäyntiasiamiehet olivat pyytäneet, että hovioikeus vapauttaa heidät oikeudenkäyntiasiamiehen tehtävistä. Hovioikeus hylkäsi pyynnön. Päätökseen sai hakea erikseen muutosta valituslupaa pyytämällä. Koska valittajilla ei enää ollut oikeudellista tarvetta hakea muutosta, lausunnon antaminen valituksesta raukesi.