Documents (EN)

The article cites documents by K-number. Use the links below to open the underlying records in redacted form.

Building control’s knowing and established unlawful practice: final inspections conducted with expired permits.

Tukes states in writing that the statutory requirements applicable at the time were not met. The authority confirms that the commissioning inspection and its inspection record were not completed as required by law, and that Section 43 of the Electrical Safety Act was breached because the entries marked in the inspection record were not true. This is the core authority document in the electrical-safety chain.

Constitutional question: When a public authority’s legally operative act remains without substantive judicial review, is the Constitution § 21 (right to have one’s case heard) and international human rights obligations (ECHR Art. 6, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Art. 47) fulfilled? The complaint does not seek to replace the Court of Appeal but asks: did the Supreme Administrative Court fail to examine the primary claim of voidness, did it depart from its precedent KHO:2011:23 without justification, and has a structural gap in legal protection emerged when both the administrative court and the civil court refused to assess the legality of the final inspection?

Direct continuation of K104, filed following the Court of Appeal’s decision (K106): The Court of Appeal’s denial of leave to appeal closed the last forum in which the primary nullity claim could have been examined on the merits. The supplement frames the violation as a three-part structure: Constitution § 2(3) — the final inspection was carried out in reliance on an established practice that disregards the requirements of law (per the building inspector’s testimony in the District Court); Constitution § 21 — the primary legal question has not been resolved on the merits in any forum, and the Supreme Administrative Court in its decision 968/2024 ignored its own yearbook precedent KHO:2021:117, on which the primary claim of the application was expressly built; Constitution § 22 — a negative jurisdictional conflict has emerged between the administrative court and the civil court, with each directing the primary question to the other’s jurisdiction, leaving the effective remedy required by Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights unfulfilled. The request seeks a legality-supervisory opinion on whether the overall conduct of the legal system has produced a gap in legal protection that is unacceptable under the Constitution.

Insurance company’s corrected decision confirms District Court jurisdiction: LähiTapiola corrected its previous rejection decision on January 15, 2026 and granted legal protection coverage for damages case against the City of Naantali. By taking this position, the insurance company decided on jurisdiction differently than the District Court, which had previously bypassed assessment regarding the final inspection. This is weighty legal recognition that the general court is the proper forum for the matter and that the administrative route is, in accordance with the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling, excluded.

Same authority, same facts, different outcome: On August 31, 2023, the Regional State Administrative Agency for Southwest Finland (AVI) issued a formal warning to a real estate brokerage under Section 18(2) of the Real Estate Brokerage Act in decision LSAVI/9427/2022. In its decision, AVI records that the building permit expired on September 12, 2011 with no extension applied for, and states that the building control authority has confirmed this in writing to the complainants. AVI’s decision further cites an opinion by a doctor of building technology, according to which the site lacks, among other records, the smoke flue inspection record, the water and sewer system inspection, and the ventilation system inspection, and the commissioning inspection of the electrical installations — a forged version of which, dated July 7, 2020, has been found. AVI’s own conclusion is that the brokerage should have noticed that the final inspection had not been applied for during the validity period of the granted permit. Structural contradiction: The same AVI refused on September 19, 2024 (K70) to investigate the identical facts as they pertained to the municipal building control authority. AVI’s own decision-making practice therefore demonstrates that the facts are acknowledged when directed at a private actor but denied when directed at the agency’s own oversight chain. If the brokerage should have noticed the permit situation, the duty of a professional building control authority is a fortiori greater.