Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 24.5.1990 76/1990 AI generated

Water court granted permit to non-shareholder company for minor water extraction from shareholding area.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 24.5.1990 76/1990
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Water Court of Finland revoked the lower court's dismissal of a water extraction permit application by a partnership company. Although the company was not a shareholder in the specific water area concerned, the court found it had a duty to apply for and obtain a permit due to the extraction's location on a shareholding area. The court granted the permit because the requested volume was deemed necessary despite the company's lack of direct shareholding status.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 1 luku 16 §; VesiL 9 luku 2 § 1 mom: A company operating on a water area shareholding land must obtain a permit for water extraction even if it is not a shareholder in that specific area, provided the extraction volume is reasonable.

Keywords

AI generated
water extraction permit water area shareholding non-shareholder company administrative review water law Finland procedural duty minor volume extraction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 1 luku 16 §
VesiL 9 luku 2 § 1 mom
AI generated
kko-precedent_1991_12
Supreme Court allows conviction for water law violation due to operating without valid permit.
admin_1995_water-superior__128
Administrative court allowed mining permit despite prior restriction order due to transferable right of use.
kho-precedent_2013_59
Supreme Administrative Court allows planning exception claim when other valid legal grounds exist despite missing land management report.
admin_1989_water-superior__50
Administrative court quashes water authority decision for lack of specific property identification and compensation.
kho-other_2018_38
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal against water law permit for groundwater recharge tests on groundwater protection area.

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

Vesioikeus oli hylännyt puutarhaviljelyä harjoittavan kommandiittiyhtiön

pääasiassa muuta kuin talousvettä tarkoittavan

kasteluveden ottamista vesistöstä koskevan hakemuksen haetun

määrän vähäisyyteen nähden tarpeettomana. Vedenotto tapahtui

yhtiön vastuunalaisten yhtiömiesten omistamalla tilalla, joka

oli vesialueen osakastila.

VYO: Yhtiö ei ollut sen vesialueen osakas, jota haettu vedenotto

koski. Yhtiöllä oli haetun vesimäärän vähäisyydestä

huolimatta velvollisuus hakea ja oikeussuojan saamisen kannalta

tarpeen saada lupa. VYO kumosi VEO:n päätöksen ja myönsi

luvan.

VesiL 1 luku 16 §

VesiL 9 luku 2 § 1 mom

Lainvoimainen