{"id":7104,"date":"2021-03-24T13:28:56","date_gmt":"2021-03-24T13:28:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leadell.ee\/?p=7104"},"modified":"2021-03-24T13:52:50","modified_gmt":"2021-03-24T13:52:50","slug":"attorney-at-law-raini-nou-successfully-represented-client-in-an-administrative-court-proceeding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leadell.ee\/en\/attorney-at-law-raini-nou-successfully-represented-client-in-an-administrative-court-proceeding\/","title":{"rendered":"Attorney-at-law Raini N\u00f5u successfully represented client in an administrative court proceeding"},"content":{"rendered":"

Attorney-at-law Raini N\u00f5u<\/a> successfully represented client in an administrative court proceeding, where the dispute was about proving the right to receive old-age pension under favorable conditions. The client submitted a pension application to the Social Insurance Board for a preferential old-age pension because, in her opinion, she had worked for more than 10 years in jobs that were particularly harmful to health. During the administrative procedure, the administrative body took a position that the existence of the favorable length of service indicated by the applicant had not been proved. In the proceeding, the Administrative Court found, on the basis of the evidence provided by the applicant (including by the witness testimony), that its disputed favorable length of service period (i.e. the time worked for two employers, approximately 12 years) must be considered as proven. By the decision of the Tallinn Administrative Court, the applicant\u2019s complaint was fully satisfied, which meant that the court agrteed that the applicant worked in jobs that were particularly harmful to health during the periods specified by her and at the employers’ office. By the same decision, the respondent was ordered to pay the full costs of the proceedings in favor of the applicant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Attorney-at-law Raini N\u00f5u successfully represented client in an administrative court proceeding, where the dispute was about proving the right to receive old-age pension under favorable conditions. The client submitted a pension application to the Social Insurance Board for a preferential old-age pension because, in her opinion, she had worked for more than 10 years in jobs that were particularly harmful to health.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69,70],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-office-news","category-dispute-resolution"],"better_featured_image":null,"acf":{"add_images":false,"choose_news_feed":false},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t