Date when decision was rendered: 31.5.1995

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2183; H93/326

Reference to source

KKO 1995:95.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1995 I January-June

Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1995 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1995 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1996

Pages: pp. 393-399

Subject

right to be heard, preparation of defence, children, law of procedure, right to reply,
rätt att höras, förberedande av försvar, barn, processrätt, rätt till genmäle,
oikeus tulla kuulluksi, puolustuksen valmisteleminen, lapset, prosessioikeus, oikeus vastaukseen,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 30, section 11-3 and Chapter 31, sections 1-4 and 6 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 30 kapitel 11 § 3 mom., 31 kapitel 1 § 4 mom., 6 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 30 luku 11 § 3 mom., 31 luku 1 § 4 mom., 6 §.

ECHR-6 (unspecified)

Abstract

A and B had agreed that B would pay A a lump-sum of FIM 80,000 as child maintenance for their common child.A paid FIM 40,000 of the money back to B as redemption for a car in accordance with their agreement on distribution of matrimonial assets, and used the rest of the money to improve her and the child's common home.

B asked the court of first instance to order A to repay the maintenance, as the child had lived with A for only 7 weeks and with B the rest of the time.A objected to the claim, stating that the payment of the lump-sum maintenance was part of the agreement on distribution of matrimonial assets.The agreement had not accorded A anything but the lump-sum.The court of first instance stated that the payment of the lump-sum was based on an agreement between the parties confirmed by the court and that it therefore was not paid without due justification even if the child did not live with A for a long time.

The court of appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance.

B appealed to the Supreme Court.In its decision of 31 August 1993 (KKO 1993:104), the Supreme Court stated that the lump-sum was intended for child maintenance and that A was thus obliged to repay the money which was not used for that purpose or for other purposes agreed by the parties.As no such money remained, A was not obliged to repay anything.

In an extraordinary appeal on the basis of procedural fault, B asked the Supreme Court to annul its decision in the case, referring to the fact that he had not been heard regarding A's response to the Supreme Court nor received a copy of the response or the issues dealt with therein.In its decision of 31 May 1995, the Supreme Court stated that Chapter 31, section 1-4 of the Code of Judicial Procedure allows for the nullification of a judgment if there has been a procedural error and this error has affected or can be presumed to have affected the judgment.It is in the interest of the respect of the judicial system that this provision is not interpreted narrowly.As B had not received a copy of A's response to the Supreme Court, as required by Chapter 30, section 11-3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, B had not been informed of all material affecting the outcome of the case.This constituted a procedural error.

The Supreme Court also referred to Article 6 of the ECHR, concluding that the right to be heard also includes a right for the parties to be informed of all material affecting the outcome of the case and thereby having a real opportunity to react to the material.In its 1993 decision, the Supreme Court came to a different conclusion on the main issue than the lower courts, basing its decision essentially on the information that emerged from A's response to the proceedings in the Supreme Court.The information on the use of the lump-sum did, contrary to in the lower courts, affect the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court as laid out in Chapter 31, section 1-4 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.The Supreme Court annulled its decision KKO 1993:104 and decided to reconsider the case.

16.4.1998 / 14.3.2003 / LISNELLM