Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 27.7.1990 120/1990 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal; prior damage compensation applies under Water Act, not general tort law.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 27.7.1990 120/1990
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 against a compensation decision regarding damage caused by drainage water from a protected area. The applicant argued that general tort law should apply because no permit was sought, claiming unforeseeable consequences. The court ruled that the Water Act's specific provision on prior damage compensation takes precedence over general tort principles.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vesilaki 11 luku 1 § 3 momentti; When damage occurs prior to a permit requirement under the Water Act, compensation is governed by the specific Water Act provision rather than general tort law.

Keywords

AI generated
prior damage compensation Water Act provision permit requirement administrative appeal tort law precedence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Vesilaki 11 luku 1 § 3 momentti
AI generated
kho-other_2020_3394
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal as doubling pig farming causes excessive odor nuisance violating environmental law requirements.
kho-other_2015_2509
Supreme Administrative Court allows partial appeal, upholding peat bog permit conditions regarding fish spawning protection zones.
admin_1990_water-superior__183
Administrative court dismissed appeal, affirming tenant's right to object to water diversion permit.
admin_1998_water-superior__28
Administrative court dismissed late appeal regarding final water damage compensation ruling due to procedural delay.
admin_1993_water-superior__135
Administrative court dismissed water authority's claim for pre-approval damages when no prior demand was made.

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

VYO katsoi turvetuotantoalueelta tulevien kuivatusvesien johtamisesta

ojaan aiheutuneiden, lupaa edeltäneiden vahinkojen

aiheutuneen toimenpiteestä, johon ei ollut haettu lupaa sen

vuoksi, ettei siitä ollut voitu otaksua aiheutuvan seurauksia,

joista luvan hakemisvelvollisuus johtui. Koska tällaisten vahinkojen

korvaamisesta on säädetty vesilain 11 luvun 1 §:n 3

momentissa, jota erityissäännöksenä oli ensisijaisesti sovellettava,

VYO poisto VEO:n korvauspäätöksen perusteluista viittauksen

vahingonkorvauslakiin.

VesiL 11 luku 1 § 3 mom

Hollo: Pilaamiskiellon sisältö vesilain mukaan (1976)

s. 482-483

Lainvoimainen