Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 1176/2011 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court allows sentence conversion execution time to include years of suspension due to debt restructuring.

Numero d'incarto KKO 1176/2011
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court ruled that the three-year period for executing a suspended sentence must include calendar years when execution was suspended due to the defendant's debt restructuring proceedings. The defendant argued that these suspended years should count toward the execution timeline, while the prosecution contended otherwise. The court agreed, establishing that interruptions in execution caused by debt restructuring laws extend the available time for enforcement.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

RL 8 luku 10 § 3 mom; VJL 79 § 2 mom: The three-year period for executing a suspended sentence includes calendar years during which execution was suspended pursuant to the Debt Restructuring Act.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
suspended sentence execution debt restructuring suspension three year period calendar years calculation supreme court ruling inosservanza del termine durata ragionevole del procedimento deficit di recepimento

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
RL 8 luku 10 § 3 mom
VJL 79 § 2 mom
Generato dall'IA
appeal_1980_eastern-finland__2122
Court dismissed appeal regarding statute of limitations interruption by a suspended sentence order issued after five years. The court ruled the limitation period was not interrupted by the later order. The court held that a subsequent order for a suspended sentence does not interrupt the statute of limitations for the original penalty. The court found the limitation period had expired before the new order was made. The court applied the principle that only specific acts interrupt the limitation period. The court emphasized the finality of the original penalty's expiration. The court rejected the argument that the new order revived the old claim. The court maintained that the limitation period had clearly passed. The court concluded the appeal was without merit. The court affirmed the lower court's decision on the matter.
insurance_2009_5239-2008
Insurance court dismissed late appeal due to lack of hearing on delay reasons, remanding for new review.
admin_1990_water-superior__39
Construction permit extension denied due to minor procedural defect in notice delivery.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2021:16
Construction permit applicant's reliance on erroneous validity certificate within two-year limit was allowed by Supreme Administrative Court.
appeal_1984_eastern-finland__1779
Court dismissed appeal where fine enforcement was barred until the original decision became legally binding.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

A:lle tuomitun sakon muuntorangaistuksen täytäntöönpano oli keskeytetty väliaikaisesti A:n haettua yksityishenkilön velkajärjestelyä. Hakemus oli jätetty sittemmin tutkimatta. Sakon muuntorangaistuksen täytäntöönpanoon käytettävissä olevaa kolmen vuoden aikaa laskettaessa otettiin huomioon myös ne kalenterivuodet, joiden aikana muuntorangaistuksen täytäntöönpano oli ollut yksityishenkilön velkajärjestelystä annetun lain perusteella keskeytettynä.

RL 8 luku 10 § 3 mom

VJL 79 § 2 mom