Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Mikkelin LO 13.6.1988 552 AI generated

Administrative court dismisses appeal against investment permit due to insufficient proximity to vacation home.

Case Number Mikkelin LO 13.6.1988 552
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal filed by owners of a vacation home against an investment permit for a motorsports center. The applicants argued the permit infringed upon their rights, but the court found the facility was too distant to affect their property rights directly. Consequently, the court ruled that no legal standing existed for the appeal because the permit did not constitute a direct interference.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

HvalL 4 §; The administrative court lacks jurisdiction to review an investment permit if the facility is located so far from the affected property that it does not directly infringe upon the owner's rights.

Keywords

AI generated
investment permit vacation home procedural standing direct interference administrative appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
HvalL 4 §
AI generated
kho-precedent_1997_47
Environmental permit appeal dismissed because permit did not affect plaintiffs' rights due to distance and size.
admin_2004_turku__225
Homeowners lacked appeal rights against wind turbine permit as they were too far from the structure.
admin_2012_helsinki__7
Administrative court dismissed appeal as plaintiffs lacked standing due to insufficient proximity and lack of direct impact.
admin_2013_aland__94
Administrative court grants appeal rights to neighbors under national law for planning needs areas in Åland.
kho-precedent_2004_100
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed environmental permit due to failure to meet health and nuisance prevention requirements.

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

Oikeuskysymyksenä oli valitusoikeus sijoituspaikkaluvasta.

Terveyslautakunta oli myöntänyt sijoituspaikkaluvan autourheilukeskukselle,

joka käsitti kiihdytysradan, liukkaan kelin

radan ja maastoautoradan. Puolisot A ja B, jotka omistivat

loma-asunnon noin 1 600 metrin päässä suunnitellusta radasta,

valittivat lupapäätöksestä sillä perusteella, että lupa loukkaa

heidän oikeuttaan.

Lääninoikeus jätti valituksen tutkimatta, koska rata sijaitsi

niin kaukana loma-asunnosta, ettei sijoituslupa koskenut välittömästi

valittajien oikeutta eikä heillä niin ollen ollut

valitusoikeutta asiassa.

HvalL 4 §