Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 20.9.1990 148/1990 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal against order to remove pier violating water law construction rules.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 20.9.1990 148/1990
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court upheld the Water Environment Authority's order requiring the landowner to remove a pier constructed in violation of water law provisions. The Authority determined the pier caused damage to a public service applicant and mandated its removal under specific statutory clauses. The court found no error in the Authority's application of the law and rejected the appellant's challenge to the decision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 1 luku 10 §; VesiL 1 luku 28 §; VesiL 2 luku 3 §; VesiL 21 luku 3 §: A pier constructed in violation of water law provisions causing damage to a public service applicant must be removed by the owner under threat of cost liability.

Keywords

AI generated
water law violation pier construction public service damage removal order administrative appeal landowner liability environmental authority

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 1 Section 10
Water Act Chapter 1 Section 28
Water Act Chapter 2 Section 3
Water Act Chapter 21 Section 3
AI generated
admin_2003_vaasa__232
Administrative court reduced a pier removal order to a shortened length, finding no significant environmental impact. The court ruled that minor pier use did not constitute a harmful change under water law. Natura 2000 restrictions were absent without specific protective decisions. The pier was shortened to meet swimming and access needs. The terrace removal order remained unchanged. This decision balances environmental protection with practical user requirements.
kho-other_2026_658
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against administrative court dismissal of building relocation order based on private contract dispute.
admin_1989_water-superior__127
Administrative court dismissed public authority's claim for official assistance against private beach construction rights.
kho-other_2016_2010
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal against water authority's rejection of flood damage compensation claim. Damages not covered by Water Act as caused by natural events, not regulation violations.
kho-precedent_2014_124
Supreme Administrative Court allows use right for minor floating pier on marine area under Water Act.

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 katsonut, että valittajalla A oli vesialueen osakkaana

ja rannanomistajana vesilain 1 luvun 28 §:n nojalla siinä mainituin

edellytyksin oikeus rakentaa laituri, mutta kyseessä

oleva laituri oli rakennettu vesilain 2 luvun 3 §:n vastaisesti

siten, että siitä aiheutui virka-avun hakijalle B:lle sellaista

vahinkoa ja haittaa, joka olisi voitu välttää rakentamalla

laituri toisin. Tämän vuoksi VEO em. lainkohtien ja vesilain

1 luvun 10 §:n ja 21 luvun 3 §:n nojalla velvoitti A:n

poistamaan laiturin määräajassa uhalla, että B saa sen tehdä

A:n kustannuksella.

VYO ei muuttanut VEO:n päätöstä.

VesiL 1 luku 10 §

VesiL 1 luku 28 §

VesiL 2 luku 3 §

VesiL 21 luku 3 §

Lainvoimainen