According to Finlex:

The Court examined whether an hourly fee could be awarded to an assistant in an international protection case after the entry into force of the Act repealing section 17a of the Legal Aid Act (738/2021), when the assistant had first claimed the relevant fee before entry into force of the law and again after the entry into force of the law on an hourly basis.

Pursuant to section 17 (1) of the Legal Aid Act, a reasonable fee is charged to a private assistant for the necessary measures based on the time spent on them and the loss of time due to necessary travel, as well as compensation for expenses. For the purpose of awarding the fee, the assistant shall provide a detailed explanation of the action taken and the costs incurred, unless it is unnecessary to provide such a statement.

Pursuant to section 17a (650/2016) of the Legal Aid Act, in a matter concerning international protection, a reasonable ad hoc fee is set for a private assistant for the performance of the assistant's duties. The Government Decree stipulated in more detail the amount of the relevant fee.

Section 17a of the Legal Aid Act has been repealed by the Act on the Repeal of Section 17a of the Legal Aid Act (738/2021), which entered into force on 1 August 2021. This means that, subject to the entry into force of Act 738/2021, the provisions of section 17 (1) of the Legal Aid Act shall also apply in the case of international protection when determining the remuneration of a private assistant.

Pursuant to the entry into force of Section 2 (2) of the Act on the Repeal of Section 17a of the Legal Aid Act, the provisions in force at the entry into force of this Act shall apply to the remuneration of a private assistant in an international protection case if the claim was made before the entry into force of this Act.

The Turku Administrative Court found that whether section 17 (1) of the Legal Aid Act or the repealed section 17a apply to the determination of the private assistant's remuneration is determined by the entry into force of the Act repealing section 17a of the Legal Aid Act, depending on when the claim was made.

The Administrative Court held that a private assistant submits his claim for remuneration only once and that the decisive date for the entry into force of the repealed law is therefore decisive for the interpretation of the provision. In this case, in a situation where a private assistant has submitted his or her claim for remuneration during the validity of section 17a of the Legal Aid Act, ie before the amendment enters into force on 1 August 2021, the amendment does not retroactively change the basis for determining his or her remuneration.

The Court held that the fact that, after the entry into force of the Act, a private assistant again requires the remuneration to be fixed on an hourly basis on the basis of section 17 (1) of the Legal Aid Act does not change the provisions under which his remuneration is fixed. As the assistant had claimed reimbursement of legal costs in an appeal filed in 2019 under the Legal Aid Act, ie before the entry into force of the Act repealing Section 17a of the Legal Aid Act, the fee had to be established on a case-by-case basis pursuant to Section 17a of the Legal Aid Act.