Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Keski-Suomen LO 26.5.1988 638 AI generated

Private sand extraction for household use is exempt from building authority bans under the Mineral Resources Act.

Case Number Keski-Suomen LO 26.5.1988 638
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the building authority's ban on extracting sand for private household use, ruling that the Mineral Resources Act does not apply to such non-commercial activities. The authority had prohibited extraction from a shared area citing water protection concerns, but the court found no legal basis to restrict private domestic needs. Consequently, the court held that the specific restrictions in the Mineral Resources Act were inapplicable to this context.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Maa-aineslain 3 ja 4 kohta; private sand extraction for household purposes falls outside the scope of the Mineral Resources Act's restrictions and cannot be banned by a building authority.

Keywords

AI generated
Mineral Resources Act household use private extraction building authority water protection administrative ban exemption from licensing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Maa-aineslain 3 kohta
Maa-aineslain 4 kohta

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:n päätös 5.4.1989 taltionumero 1041
KHO:n päätös 5.4.1989 taltionumero 1041.
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KHO:2023:108
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal, quashing permit due to insufficient survey and flawed interest comparison in floating bridge case.
admin_2013_aland__22
Administrative court dismisses appeal when building permit authority ignores neighbor hearing rights under Åland planning law.
kho-precedent_2006_91
Supreme Administrative Court allows building permit when site is not on protected water body shore zone.
kho-precedent_1999_65
Construction permit denied because watercourse regulations do not apply to artificial lakes and landowner projects on private land.
kko-precedent_2017_53
Supreme Court dismisses tidal marsh acquisition claim due to minor harm compared to natural landscape preservation goals.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Voitiinko hiekan kotitarvekäyttö kieltää maa-aineslain 3 §:n perusteella.

Rakennuslautakunta kielsi hiekan ottamisen 174 tilan yhteiskäyttöön erotetulta hiekanottoalueelta veden hankintaan ja vesien suojeluun liittyvistä syistä. Hiekan otto tapahtui osakastilojen kotitarvekäyttöä varten.

Maa-aineksen oton tapahtuessa tavanomaista kotitarvekäyttöä varten ei ottamiseen tarvittu lupaa. Näin ollen ei ottamistoimintaan voitu soveltaa maa-aineslain 3 §:ssä tarkoitettuja ainesten ottamisen rajoituksia. Rakennuslautakunnan ei olisi siten tullut maa-aineslain perusteella kieltää hiekan ottamista.

Maa-ainesL 3 §

Maa-ainesL 4 §

KHO:n päätös 5.4.1989 taltionumero 1041. Ei muutosta.

KHO:n lyhyt ratkaisuseloste.