{"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":"Turun HO 25.1.2017 77 - V\u00e4limiesmenettely","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7pGSUW2swA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/turun-ho-25-1-2017-77-valimiesmenettely\/\">Turun HO 25.1.2017 77 &#8211; V\u00e4limiesmenettely<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/turun-ho-25-1-2017-77-valimiesmenettely\/embed\/#?secret=7pGSUW2swA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a Turun HO 25.1.2017 77 &#8211; V\u00e4limiesmenettely \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"7pGSUW2swA\" 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":"RATKAISUN KESKEINEN SIS\u00c4LT\u00d6 V\u00e4limiesoikeuden puheenjohtajana toiminutta v\u00e4limiest\u00e4 ei ollut asetettu asianmukaisessa j\u00e4rjestyksess\u00e4. V\u00e4limiesmenettelyn asianosaisen katsottiin kuitenkin menettelyll\u00e4\u00e4n luopuneen vetoamasta mainittuun seikkaan, mink\u00e4 vuoksi sen vaatimus v\u00e4litystuomion kumoamisesta hyl\u00e4ttiin. Laki v\u00e4limiesmenettelyst\u00e4 41 \u00a7 K\u00c4R\u00c4J\u00c4OIKEUDEN RATKAISU Varsinais-Suomen k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeuden tuomio 19.11.2015 nro 36033 V\u00e4limiesmenettelyn asianosainen A vaati kanteessaan, ett\u00e4 Turussa 5.11.2014 annettu v\u00e4litystuomio kumotaan muun ohella siksi, ett\u00e4..."}