Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 21.4.1992 454/1 AI generated

City council's building law forfeiture decision dismissed due to procedural defects in the municipal appeal process.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 21.4.1992 454/1
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 City Council's decision to enforce forfeiture under the Building Act because the municipal appeal procedure was flawed. The Council sought forfeiture for failure to build within the statutory period after receiving a construction plan request. The court ruled that the decision could not stand due to the improper handling of the municipal appeal stage.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Rakennuslain 52 §; Kunnallisvalituslain 139 §: A municipal authority's decision to enforce forfeiture is invalid if the municipal appeal procedure is not properly followed.

Keywords

AI generated
building act forfeiture municipal appeal procedure construction plan request statutory building period administrative court review procedural defect dismissal city council decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Rakennuslain 52 §
Kaupunginhallitus oli päättänyt rakennuslain 52 §:n 4 momentin
Kunnallisvalituslain 139 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:n päätös A:22.3.1993 T:977
KHO:n päätös A:22.3.1993 T:977 : Muutettu Päätös on
AI generated
kko-precedent_2016_7
City's land requisition claim dismissed because the zoning plan did not clearly designate the land for city needs.
kho-precedent_2009_92
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal; expropriation for industrial construction counts as community building under Land Use Act.
admin_2002_turku__346
Administrative court dismissed appeal, ruling city's acquisition decision is a municipal law matter, not planning law.
kko-precedent_2002_93
Supreme Court allows compensation for construction right loss and construction difficulty caused by power line reservation in land acquisition.
kho-precedent_2004_74
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; city's request for expropriation procedure is only preparatory and not appealable.

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

Kaupunginhallitus oli päättänyt rakennuslain 52 §:n 4 momentin

nojalla hakea lunastuksen toimeenpanoa, koska tonttia

ei ollut rakennettu rakennuslain 52 §:n 1 momentin mukaisesti

määräajassa rakentamiskehotuksen antamisesta.

Kaupunginhallituksen päätös oli valituskelpoinen kunnallisvalituksena.

RakennusL 52 §

KunL 139 §

KHO:n päätös A:22.3.1993 T:977 : Muutettu Päätös on

tallennettu oikeustapausrekisteriin (FKHO).