{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","provider_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","author_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","title":"TT 2021:84 - Neuvottelumenettely","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"j9XbTofPMO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/tt-202184-neuvottelumenettely\/\">TT 2021:84 &#8211; Neuvottelumenettely<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/tt-202184-neuvottelumenettely\/embed\/#?secret=j9XbTofPMO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a TT 2021:84 &#8211; Neuvottelumenettely \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"j9XbTofPMO\" 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":"$99 Asiassa oli annettu v\u00e4lituomio TT 2021:56, jossa kanteessa esitetyt suoritusvaatimukset oli hyl\u00e4tty vanhentuneina. V\u00e4lituomion antamisen j\u00e4lkeen kantaja oli peruuttanut osan vaatimuksistaan. Kanne j\u00e4tettiin n\u00e4ilt\u00e4 osin sillens\u00e4. Asiassa oli siten esitetty useita vaatimuksia, joista osa ratkaistiin toisen ja osa toisen hyv\u00e4ksi. Asian lopputulokseen n\u00e4hden ty\u00f6tuomioistuin harkitsi oikeaksi, ett\u00e4 asianosaiset saivat pit\u00e4\u00e4 oikeudenk\u00e4yntikulunsa vahinkonaan. (\u00c4\u00e4n. oikeudenk\u00e4yntikuluista)..."}