Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan LO 22.11.1991 427/I AI generated

Neighbors without common boundary or proximity to construction site excluded from notification rights under Building Act.

Case Number Vaasan LO 22.11.1991 427/I
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 applicants' claim that they were entitled to notification of the building inspection for a wind turbine. Although the applicants' properties were located 300 to 450 meters from the site, they shared no common boundary with the construction area. The court ruled that the statutory definition of 'neighbors' requiring notification was not met due to the lack of a shared boundary and insufficient proximity.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Rakennusasetuksen 124 § 1 momentti (930/89); Neighbors entitled to notification of building inspections must be owners of properties sharing a common boundary with the construction site.

Keywords

AI generated
building inspection notification neighbor definition common boundary requirement administrative review wind turbine construction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Rakennusasetuksen 124 § 1 momentti (930/89)
AI generated
admin_2013_aland__22
Administrative court dismisses appeal when building permit authority ignores neighbor hearing rights under Åland planning law.
kho-precedent_2002_40
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal as building site is not opposite or adjacent to appellant's land.
kho-precedent_2012_10
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against building permit when property faces construction site diagonally across street intersection.
admin_2012_helsinki__7
Administrative court dismissed appeal as plaintiffs lacked standing due to insufficient proximity and lack of direct impact.
kho-precedent_2004_13
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses variance application where land does not form a designated building site in the coastal zone plan.

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

Oikeuskysymyksenä asiassa oli, oliko muutoksenhakijoita

pidettävä rakennusasetuksen 124 §:n 1 momentissa (930/89)

tarkoitettuina naapurikiinteistöjen haltijoina, joille oli

annettava tieto katselmuksen ajasta.

Rakennuslautakunta oli, toimitettuaan rakennuspaikalla

katselmuksen, myöntänyt rakennusluvan tuulivoimalaitoksen

rakentamiseksi.

Muutoksenhakijoille ei ollut annettu tietoa katselmuksen

ajankohdasta. Muutoksenhakijoiden kiinteistöt sijaitsivat

noin 300 - 450 metrin etäisyydellä tuulivoimalaitoksen

rakennuspaikasta. Muutoksenhakijoiden kiinteistöillä ei

ollut yhteistä rajaa rakennuspaikkaan nähden.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että muutoksenhakijat eivät olleet

sellaisten rakennusasetuksen 124 §:n 1 momentissa tarkoitettujen

naapureina olevien kiinteistöjen haltijoita,

joille olisi ollut annettava tieto katselmuksesta.

RakennusA 124 § 1 mom (930/89)