Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 16.9.1988 83/1988 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal as Water Act evidence requirements were insufficient for cost comparison.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 16.9.1988 83/1988
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed VR's appeal against the Water Authority's decision to return the case for supplementary investigation. The Authority argued that the original evidence failed to sufficiently determine the location of the ditch and the resulting obligations, which was necessary to compare the costs of the proposed alternatives. Consequently, the court upheld the Authority's ruling that the file must be returned to the Water Authority for further fact-finding before a final cost comparison could be made.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 6 luku 33 § 2 mom; The administrative authority must provide sufficient evidence regarding the specific location of a ditch and the associated obligations to validly compare the economic feasibility of alternative water diversion plans.

Keywords

AI generated
Water Act administrative evidence cost comparison ditch location supplementary investigation railway rights procedural requirement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 6 luku 33 § 2 mom (19.5.1961/264)
VesiL 6 luku 33 § 2 mom (19.5.1961/264)
AI generated
kho-precedent_2012_54
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against civil servant status changes under strict constitutional review.
market_2022_3
Market Court dismisses appeal, remands case to FPRH for re-examination due to new grounds and lack of hearing.
admin_1990_turku-and-pori-county__769
Administrative court dismissed late overpayment claim due to new 3-year statute of limitations not retroactively applied.
insurance_1987_1836-1987
Early pension claim dismissed because applicant had higher disability pension rights under sickness insurance law.
admin_1993_water-superior__49
Administrative court dismissed appeal due to procedural defect regarding unaddressed rental income loss claim.

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

VEO oli määrännyt VR:n joko uusimaan suuremmaksi erään rautatierummun

tai vaihtoehtoisesti rakentamaan nykyisen kivirummun

läheisyyteen alistusputken. VR haki muutosta.

VYO: VR oli saattanut todennäköiseksi, että ojitussuunnitelma

oli mahdollista toteuttaa myös VR:n taloudellisesti edullisemmaksi

katsomalla, vasta VYO:ssa esitetyllä yhdysojavaihtoehdolla.

Asiakirjoista saatava selvitys ei ollut riittävä ojan

paikan ja siitä johtuvien velvollisuuksien määräämiseksi

VYO:ssa. VYO palautti asian tältä osin täydentävään ojitustoimitukseen.

VesiL 6 luku 33 § 2 mom (19.5.1961/264)

Lainvoimainen