Lakimies

Suomalaisen Lakimiesyhdistyksen myöntämät palkinnot

2025-04-15

Tämän numeron kirjoittajat

2025-04-15

Salliiko liikesalaisuuslaki tiedon hankinnan?

Maiju Auranen — 2025-04-15

Does the Trade Secrets Act allow the acquisition of information?

The article examines the unlawful acquisition of a trade secret as stipulated in Section 3, Subsection 4 of the Finnish Trade Secrets Act. The research question is: what does this Section allow when it regulates the unlawful acquisition of a trade secret? The article presents that, against its wording, the provision cannot allow the acquisition of a trade secret but rather the acquisition of information that is the subject of someone else’s trade secret right. In the article, this is demonstrated not only by linguistic interpretation, but also by breaking down the provision to legal positions according to the Hohfeldian schema. As the schema requires that the content of the relation between the positions corresponds, the object in the relation must also remain the same when viewed from different ends of the relation. One conclusion of the article is that the legal concept of trade secret is not coherently applied in the Trade Secrets Act, with the result that the goal of limiting trade secret rights, i.e., ensuring the free movement of information, is not fully achieved.

Asuttuun asuntoon kohdistuva törkeä varkaus

Heikki Kallio — 2025-04-15

Aggravated theft from an occupied residence

Chapter 28, Section 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the criteria for aggravated theft. One of the aggravating criteria for theft is breaking into an inhabited dwelling. However, breaking into an inhabited dwelling does not automatically make the theft aggravated, as the theft must also be aggravated when considered as a whole. The overall seriousness of the offence should thus exceed a single aggravating criterion. The article analyses the fulfilment of the aggravating criteria for aggravated burglary and, above all, the criteria by which the burglary of a dwelling is considered to be aggravated in its entirety. The analysis shows that the most important factors in judicial decisions regarding the seriousness of the offence are the planning of the offence, the offence being part of a series of offences, and the number of offenders. Planning is reflected, for instance, in the choice of the targets and the equipment used. Other factors, such as the value of the stolen property, have also been given weight in the overall seriousness assessment. The factors which increase and decrease the overall seriousness of the offence should be more clearly and openly stated in the conviction.

Sopimusvelvoitteiden määrittely monimutkaisessa projektiallianssissa, esimerkkinä rakennusurakka

Rosanna Laurikainen-Klami — 2025-04-15

Defining obligations in complex project alliances: the example of construction

In this paper, I study ways to restrict contractual uncertainties resulting from flexible contract terms and the incomplete nature of project alliance contracts. In the existing contractual environment, contracts need to be flexible and dynamic. A project alliance contract is a highly dynamic contract model in which many of the contractual obligations are defined after the parties have signed the contract document. However, the prevailing concept of a contract is still static and strives for completeness. Consequently, dynamic contracts such as project alliance contracts are incompatible with the prevailing concept, which may lead to challenges when enforcing and interpreting them. Therefore, I examine how project alliance contracts and the prevailing concept of a contract should be developed to diminish the gap between them.
Based on 13 expert interviews, I observed how parties define their contractual obligations during the contract period and analysed the material in the framework of relational contract theory, theories of incomplete contracting and the functional contracting approach. It seems that formal contracts have a vital role in creating the structures and rules for the parties’ contractual relationship. These structures enable the parties to build dynamic and open co-operation, which is vital in a successful project alliance. To avoid the contractual insecurities resulting from a highly dynamic contract model, I suggest that parties use tools provided by the functional contracting approach to recognise issues essential to their contractual relationship, and use applicable contractual instruments to agree on those issues. Furthermore, I propose that the concept of a contract should be refined to recognise the evolving nature of long-term contracts. When interpreting contracts that emphasise co-operation, the parties’ commitment to co-operation should be underlined instead of detailed obligations, and solutions should be sought taking into consideration what, in each case, is best for the
project in question.

Hyvinvointialueen itsehallinnon rajoilla. Miten oikeus riittäviin terveyspalveluihin rajaa hyvinvointialueen paikallista itsehallintoa?

Lauri Tanner — 2025-04-15

On the borders of the self-government of wellbeing services counties. How does the right to adequate medical services limit the self-governance of
wellbeing services counties?

In Finland’s social and healthcare reform, a new level of administration was established, i.e., 21 self-governing wellbeing services counties. Wellbeing services counties are responsible for arranging social care, healthcare and rescue operations in their area. The highest decision-maker in wellbeing services counties is the democratically-elected regional council, and one of the goals of the reform was to strengthen the democratic control of these duties. However, the content of the services that are the responsibility of the welfare services counties has been comprehensively regulated, and as early as the preparation phase of the reform, the Constitutional Law Committee of the Finnish Parliament drew attention to the fact that this self-government remains quite thin.
In the article, we discuss how the legislation on the content of healthcare limits the authority of regional councils, and evaluate the implementation of the self-governance of the wellbeing services counties. A binding minimum quality level has been set for most of the healthcare services. Wellbeing services counties can produce services exceeding this minimum level, but considering their financial situation, this possibility is mostly theoretical. The conclusion of the article is that the self-governance of wellbeing services counties regarding the contents of healthcare services is mainly limited to service network issues and, within certain limits, to the choice of the production form. Wellbeing services counties cannot necessarily even be considered self-governing as defined in the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

Väärentäjän matkassa

Marianne Vasara-Aaltonen — 2025-04-15

Kiistanalainen kohtuullisuus

Tatu Hyttinen — 2025-04-15

Vetoamisfunktio ja parodia

Mikko Hoikka — 2025-04-15

Yhdyskuntapalvelu ehdollisen vankeuden oheisseuraamuksena

Heikki Kemppinen — 2025-04-15

Jättäisimmekö sittenkään hyvästejä Humen giljotiinille

Aki Rasilainen — 2025-04-15

KHO 2024:115 – Miten soveltaa EU-oikeutta silloin, kun se ei sovellu?

Susanna Lindroos-Hovinheimo — 2025-04-15

KKO 2024:71 ja KHO 2024:129 - Palkkioasetuksessa säädetyn tuntipalkkion määrä syynissä

Martina Nyman — 2025-04-15

Säätiöiden valvonnan edellytykset ja välineet omistaja- ja jäsenvalvonnan näkökulmasta

Terhi Maijala — 2025-04-15

Lectio praecursoria

Maijala, Terhi. Säätiöiden valvonnan edellytykset ja välineet omistaja- ja jäsenvalvonnan näkökulmasta

Veikko Vahtera — 2025-04-15

Virallisen vastaväittäjän, professori Veikko Vahteran Turun yliopiston oikeustieteelliselle tiedekunnalle antama 3.12.2024 päivätty lausunto vähäisin muutoksin.

Rangaistuksen määräämisen osaratkaisut ja rikosseuraamusten oikeasuhtaisuus

Ville A. Saarinen — 2025-04-15

Lectio praecursoria

Saarinen, Ville A. Rangaistuksen määräämisen osaratkaisut ja rikosseuraamusten oikeasuhtaisuus

Annika Suominen — 2025-04-15

Virallisen vastaväittäjän, apulaisprofessori Annika Suomisen Helsingin yliopiston oikeustieteelliselle tiedekunnalle antama 24.1.2025 päivätty lausunto vähäisin muutoksin.