Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 16.4.1991 60/1991 AI generated

Administrative court limits threat to work at applicant's cost to mandatory actions only, excluding optional ones.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 16.4.1991 60/1991
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Finland modified the water authority's order regarding a diversion project, restricting the threat of cost imposition to mandatory actions only. The applicant argued that threatening them to perform optional measures, such as installing a specific pipe, was legally impermissible. The court ruled that a threat to impose costs cannot be used to compel a party to undertake an action they have a right to but no duty to perform.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 6 luku 3 § 1; VesiL 6 luku 8 §; VesiL 20 luku 7 §: A threat to impose work costs on a party cannot be directed at optional measures where the party has a right but no duty to act.

Keywords

AI generated
water law administrative threat cost imposition mandatory vs optional diversion project administrative court legal duty

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 6 luku 3 § 1
VesiL 6 luku 8 §
VesiL 20 luku 7 §
AI generated
appeal_1975_helsinki__184
Tenant successfully terminated lease due to lack of adequate housing conditions for himself and child.
kko-precedent_1992_12
Supreme Court dismisses passenger claim for damages against tour operator regarding unfair travel terms. Passenger failed to raise unfairness arguments in lower courts. Court rules lower courts cannot base judgment on unfair terms without prior notice. Unfair contract terms require explicit invocation by the claimant to be considered.
appeal_1981_eastern-finland__686
Tenant eviction for neighbor disturbance upheld; prior notice requirement for procedural violation not met.
kko-precedent_1998_112
Supreme Court rules that a party granted free legal aid must reimburse the state but not the opponent's appeal costs if they lose the appeal.
kko-precedent_1989_124
Supreme Court allows appeal; lower court lacked jurisdiction to terminate free trial based on same income data.

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

Vesilain 20 luvun 7 §:ssä tarkoitettua uhkaa siitä, että hakija

tai lautakunta saa teettää työn laiminlyöjän kustannuksella,

ei voida asettaa sellaisen vaihtoehtoisen toimenpiteen

suorittamiseksi, johon velvoitetulla on oikeus, mutta ei velvollisuutta.

Sen vuoksi vesiylioikeus muutti ojitusasiassa

ojan ennalleen avaamiseen tai tietyn suuruisen putken asettamiseen

liittyneen teettämisuhan koskemaan vain ojan ennalleen

avaamista.

VesiL 6 luku 3 § 1

VesiL 6 luku 8 §

VesiL 20 luku 7 §

Lainvoimainen