Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 5.10.1988 93/1988 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed sewage fee claim, ruling compensation is a benefit to be shared by land controllers.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 5.10.1988 93/1988
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Finland dismissed the applicant's appeal against a water authority's order to pay compensation for sewage damage. The authority had required the applicant to identify the land controller at the time of damage and share the compensation proportionally. The court held that such compensation constitutes a benefit to be negotiated or litigated between the controllers, not a direct claim by the authority.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 1 luku 9 §; VesiL 11 luku 3 § 4 kohta: Compensation for damage during administrative control is a benefit to be shared between controllers unless otherwise specified, and the authority cannot unilaterally determine the recipient.

Keywords

AI generated
sewage damage compensation administrative control period land controller rights benefit sharing water law provisions

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 1 luku 9 §
VesiL 11 luku 3 § 4 kohta
VesiL 11 luku 3 § 4 kohta
VesiL 14 luku 3 §
VesiA 56 § 2 mom
VesiL 11 luku 18 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Pietilä, Vesioikeus (1979) s.148
Pietilä, Vesioikeus (1979) s.148
AI generated
kko-precedent_1990_162
Supreme Court rules compensation based on 1986 announcement date since company lacked right of possession in 1980.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2025:42
Defendant must repay state for defense lawyer fees when losing criminal case involving state-appointed counsel.
kko-precedent_1994_15
Supreme Court allows full compensation based on 1989 market prices for land taken for a road.
kko-precedent_1990_68
Supreme Court allows claim against third party for unjust enrichment from water damage compensation paid to former owner.
kko-precedent_1999_41
Supreme Court rejects reduction of damages due to defendant's intentional tort and future earning potential.

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 tuomitessaan jäteveden johtamisesta kuluneelta ajalta

aiheutuneesta haitasta jätevesiluvan hakijan maksettavaksi

korvauksia tiloille ja ranta-alueille samalla määrännyt, että

hakijan oli niitä maksaessaan selvitettävä korvauskohteen haltija

vahinkoajalta ja ositettava korvaus hallinta-ajan suhteessa.

Hakijan muutoksenhakemuksesta VYO poisti määräyksen

katsoen, että oikeus tilan tai alueen vahingosta johtuvaan

korvaukseen oli näihin liittyvä etuus, josta näitä vahinkoaikana

hallinneiden asia oli sopia tai erikseen riidellä, jaetaanko

korvaus. Ellei asiassa muuta ilmennyt, korvaus oli

maksettava sille, joka osoittaa maksamisajankohtana hallitsevansa

tilaa tai aluetta omistusoikeuden tai muun laillisen

oikeuden nojalla.

VesiL 1 luku 9 §

VesiL 11 luku 3 § 4 kohta

VesiL 14 luku 3 §

VesiA 56 § 2 mom

Vrt. VesiL 11 luku 18 §

Pietilä, Vesioikeus (1979) s.148

Lainvoimainen