Lakimies

Oikeusvaltion kansainväliset takeet

2024-09-16T13:57:12+03:00

Tehtävä kirkkaana mielessä - muutoksenhakuintressi ja tuomioistuinten tehtävät

2024-09-26T15:49:27+03:00

Vihreä siirtymä, oikeusjärjestelmä ja rakkausavioliiton pettymykset

2024-12-02T14:13:18+02:00

Käytännönläheinen soveltamisopas eurooppalaisesta tilivarojen turvaamismenettelystä

2024-11-07T07:54:56+02:00

Tavoitetahallisuus – Junamatka rikostunnusmerkistön olosuhteiden tahtomiseen

2024-12-01T19:52:37+02:00

Lectio praecursoria

Karkkulainen, Jussi. Tavoitetahallisuus - Junamatka rikostunnusmerkistön olosuhteiden tahtomiseen

2024-12-18T13:15:55+02:00

Virallisen vastaväittäjän, oikeusneuvos, dosentti Jussi Tapanin Itä-Suomen yliopiston yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunnalle antama 27.10.2024 päivätty lausunto vähäisin muutoksin.

Vielä syntymättömien ihmisten perusoikeudet

2025-02-21T12:07:50+02:00

KKO 2024:34 - Veropetoksen tekotapa ja korotetun tahallisuuden arviointi

2024-11-04T18:52:48+02:00

KHO 2024:69 - Asianosaisjulkisuuden rajoittaminen ja poliisin suorittama ajoterveyden valvonta

2024-11-20T12:44:37+02:00

Tämän numeron kirjoittajat

2025-02-21T11:44:44+02:00

Moniääniosakkeet arvopaperimarkkinoilla – hyödyllisiä vai haitallisia?

2024-10-27T11:13:45+02:00

Multiple voting rights shares on capital markets – beneficial or harmful?

Recent decades have seen several attempts to enforce a mandatory “one share, one vote” principle in the European Union, banning the use of multiple voting rights (MVR) shares. Recently, the European Commission issued a legislative package known as the Listing Act, which included a proposal for the Europewide introduction of MVR shares for companies listed on SME Growth Markets. During the legislative proposal, the European Parliament attempted to turn the Commission’s proposal upside down, putting forward a mandatory sunset clause for MVR shares for the companies listed in the European regulated markets and multilateral trading facilities.

The Parliament and Council reached a political agreement regarding the matter this February. The directive aims at encouraging company owners, especially owners of SMEs, to list the shares of their company for the first time in an SME Growth Market using MVR share structures, so that they can retain sufficient control of their company after listing. Moreover, the directive protects the rights of newly entered shareholders by introducing safeguards.

This article aims to discuss MVR shares from two perspectives. The proposal and Parliament’s negative stance toward MVR shares raise several questions. First, are MVR shares positive or negative for shareholders or for our capital markets? Second, should the use of MVR be left addressed in national company law or harmonised amongst the Member States?

Työnantaja-asema, vastuuriskit ja itsemääräämisoikeus henkilökohtaisen avun työnantajamallissa

2024-12-11T10:38:17+02:00

Employer status, liability risks, and self-determination in the personal assistance employer model

This article examines the employer model stipulated in the Disability Services Act from a private law perspective. Under this model, a disabled person’s subjective right to necessary personal assistance is arranged through an employment relationship. The model aims to ensure the independence and control of the disabled person over their own activities (self-determination). The disabled person enters into an employment contract with a personal assistant, and the well-being services county reimburses the costs associated with hiring the assistant. The disabled person assumes a dual role: as a client of the public welfare service and as an employer of the assistant (“client-employer”).

The employer model has faced criticism due to the significant risks of civil and criminal liability it imposes on the client-employer. Conversely, it offers the advantage of granting the client-employer the authority to determine the implementation of personal assistance. The article explores how the liability risks of the employer model can be mitigated while preserving the benefits.

First, the article analyzes the position of the client-employer as the employee’s contractual partner, drawing upon the model of party role differentiation developed by Thomas Wilhelmsson. The client-employer’s role can be viewed as a so-called functional protective role that influences their position within the contractual relationship. However, this role cannot significantly reduce the employer’s liability, primarily due to employee protection considerations. Second, the article delves into the common and distinguishing features between the employment model and temporary agency work stipulated in the Employment Contracts Act. There are more common features than differences, and personal assistance could be implemented as temporary agency work within the existing labor law by amending the Disability Services Act. This approach would maintain the disabled person’s right to determine the assistance they receive while mitigating their risks by transferring certain employer responsibilities to the well-being services county.

Rangaistuksen tuomitsematta jättäminen huumausainerikoksissa

2024-09-16T18:59:24+03:00

Waiving of punishment for drug offences

The waiving of punishment is part of the criminal sanction system. The Criminal Code contains a special provision on waiving of measures for drug offences. In addition, the waiving of punishment is possible on the grounds of the pettiness of the offence, the youth of the offender, and the unreasonable nature of the sanction. For example, the punishment may be waived if the offender is willing to undergo treatment. However, in court practice, the waiving of punishment is very rare - even for petty drug offences. The article discusses the current legal practice and encourages judges to apply provisions on the waiving of punishment for drug offences.

Tulevien sukupolvien oikeudet ja sosiaaliturvajärjestelmän taloudellinen kestävyys

2024-10-26T16:17:41+03:00

The rights of future generations and the economic sustainability of social security systems

In recent years, the rights of future generations, and, more broadly, intergenerational justice, have increasingly become the subject of legal debate and research. This has been influenced above all by the emergence of so-called climate change litigation. So far, however, the rights of future generations have not been sufficiently discussed within other branches of law. The aim of this article is to answer the question of how the rights of not-yet-born future generations could – and should – be taken into account in today's social basic and human rights doctrine. It is argued, first, that securing the rights of future generations is not about defining the scope and level of future social security benefits, but, rather, ensuring that by avoiding excessive public debt future generations have the freedom and opportunity to define them themselves. Second, it is argued that even though it is difficult to evaluate the excessiveness of public debt and its impact on the “freedom rights” of future generations, different macroeconomic imbalance criteria serve as a good starting point. Finally, the anchoring of the justification of economic sustainability additionally to the rights of future generations lends it more normative force than mere macroeconomic arguments.