Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 3.10.1988 91/1988 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed permit for ponding on water area lacking legal right and economic necessity.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 3.10.1988 91/1988
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request to maintain a pond on a shared water area. The court found the ponding was primarily intended to convert the water area into land for personal use, lacking economic necessity or legal authority under the Water Act. Consequently, the court ruled that the applicant had no right to pond the water and the permit application was invalid.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Water Act Chapter 1 Section 10; Water Act Chapter 1 Section 28; Water Act Chapter 2 Section 6 Paragraph 1: A permit for ponding on a water area is denied if the activity lacks legal basis under the Water Act and does not serve a reasonable economic purpose or necessary water management.

Keywords

AI generated
ponding permit water area economic necessity legal authority shared land Water Act administrative review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 1 Section 10
Water Act Chapter 1 Section 28
Water Act Chapter 2 Section 6 Paragraph 1
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KHO:2024:117
Military service pay denied for early resignation; court upholds employer's refusal based on statutory purpose.
admin_1989_water-superior__112
Administrative court dismissed permit for lake island bridge due to disproportionate environmental harm.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2022:91
Supreme Administrative Court remands residence permit case to Migrations Finland for fresh assessment of child's best interests.
admin_1986_northern-karelia-county__155
Court allows movement permit based on traditional berry and mushroom gathering as a valid livelihood reason.
admin_2009_turku__420
Administrative court dismisses appeal by tenant claiming municipal council membership violates equality law.

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

A oli tehnyt tilansa kohdalla pengerryksiä jakokunnan vesialueelle

ja haki lupaa niiden pysyttämiseen. Hakemus hylättiin,

koska pengertäminen, joka oli tapahtunut pääasiassa tarkoituksella

muuttaa vesialuetta maa-alueeksi ja käyttää aluetta pengertäjän

tarkoituksiin, ei ollut tarpeen vesialueen tai hakijan

tilan järkiperäistä hyväksikäyttöä tai muutakaan hyödyllistä

taloudellista toimintaa varten eikä hakijallakaan, joka

kyllä oli jakokunnan osakas, ollut pengerrysoikeutta myöskään

vesilain 1 luvun 10 §:n tai 28 §:n nojalla.

VesiL 2 luku 6 § 1 mom

Lainvoimainen