Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 18.6.1992 154/1992 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed water board's cost allocation order due to lack of prior request and jurisdictional limits.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 18.6.1992 154/1992
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Finland dismissed the water board's decision requiring the applicant to share excavation costs for a ditch. The lower body had ordered cost-sharing without the opposing party requesting it and lacked jurisdiction to decide on cost allocation absent a prior agreement. Consequently, the court removed the cost-sharing obligation, leaving the water board's other decisions intact.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 6 luku 9 § 2 mom; VesiL 6 luku 10 § 1 mom 4 kohta: A water authority cannot unilaterally impose cost-sharing obligations on a landowner for shared ditch excavation if the opposing party did not request such liability and no prior agreement exists to determine proportional contribution.

Keywords

AI generated
water authority jurisdiction excavation cost allocation proportional contribution liability administrative procedural request shared ditch agreement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 6 luku 9 § 2 mom
VesiL 6 luku 10 § 1 mom 4 kohta
VesiL 6 luku 10 § 1 mom 4 kohta
VesiL 6 luku 12 §
VesiL 6 luku 13 §
AI generated
kho-other_2016_3695
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeals against a coastal zone plan approval regarding badger habitat protection.
kko-precedent_1990_142
Supreme Court dismisses divorce cost claim when spouse initiates divorce alone and does not oppose it.
kko-precedent_2004_114
Supreme Court dismisses appeal on legal aid termination due to lack of need and denies assistant fee.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2025:42
Defendant must repay state for defense lawyer fees when losing criminal case involving state-appointed counsel.
kko-other_2003_361
Supreme Court dismisses claim for state reimbursement of defense lawyer fees and costs in criminal proceedings.

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

A:n vaadittua ympäristönsuojelulautakunnassa B:tä tukkimaan

tilojen rajalle avaamansa tarpeettoman ojan ympäristönsuojelulautakunta

oli muun ohella velvoittanut A:n osallistumaan puoliksi

ojan kaivukustannuksiin. VEO oli pysyttänyt ratkaisun.

A:n valituksesta VYO poisti ympäristönsuojelulautakunnan ja

VEO:n päätökset kaivukustannusten osalta, koska B ei ollut

ympäristönsuojelulautakunnassa vaatinut A:n velvoittamista

osallistumaan kaivukustannuksiin ja koska ympäristönsuojelulautakunta

ei ollut toimivaltainen ratkaisemaan kysymystä siitä,

onko A:n suhteellisesti saamansa hyödyn mukaan osallistuttava

ojan kaivukustannuksiin, kun yhteisestä ojituksesta ei

ollut sovittu.

VesiL 6 luku 9 § 2 mom

VesiL 6 luku 10 § 1 mom 4 kohta

VesiL 6 luku 12 §

VesiL 6 luku 13 §

Lainvoimainen