{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","provider_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","author_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","title":"Helsingin HO 27.2.2019 237 - Oikeudenk\u00e4yntikulut","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZvbS9VAtjo\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/helsingin-ho-27-2-2019-237-oikeudenkayntikulut\/\">Helsingin HO 27.2.2019 237 &#8212; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntikulut<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/helsingin-ho-27-2-2019-237-oikeudenkayntikulut\/embed\/#?secret=ZvbS9VAtjo\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u00abHelsingin HO 27.2.2019 237 &#8212; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntikulut\u00bb &#8212; Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"ZvbS9VAtjo\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","description":"OK Perint\u00e4 Oy vaati riidattomassa velkomusasiassa velallisen velvoittamista suorittamaan samalla haastehakemuksella kahdelta eri velkojalta siirtyneit\u00e4 saatavia. K\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus velvoitti yksipuolisella tuomiolla velallisen suorittamaan vaaditut p\u00e4\u00e4omat korkoineen ja kuluineen. Hovioikeus katsoi, ett\u00e4 saatavia oli ker\u00e4tty samaan haastehakemukseen useilta velkojilta ja oikeudenk\u00e4yntikulut tuli tuomita vastapuolen maksettavaksi tuomittavista oikeudenk\u00e4yntikuluista oikeudenk\u00e4ymiskaaren 21 luvun 8 c \u00a7:ss\u00e4 tarkoitetuissa asioissa annetun oikeusministeri\u00f6n..."}