Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 16.7.1993 139/1993 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal; environmental board's advice to settle was invalid as damage compensation belonged to water court.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 16.7.1993 139/1993
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 appeal against the environmental protection board's advice to the parties to settle the dispute. The board incorrectly claimed jurisdiction over compensation for damage caused by a ditch, which actually fell under the water court's authority regarding water rights and urgent water supply needs. Consequently, the board's advice was deemed a flawed administrative act violating the claimant's legal protections and was annulled.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

HValL 1 §; HValL 2 §; HValL 3 §: An administrative body's advice to settle a dispute regarding damage compensation is invalid if the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of a specialized court, as such advice constitutes a flawed administrative act violating the claimant's legal protections.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative jurisdiction water court authority damage compensation legal protection violation administrative act annulment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
HValL 1 §
HValL 2 §
HValL 3 §
AI generated
kho-other_2026_1774
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against administrative court's revocation of threat penalty for water law violation.
kho-other_2017_3091
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal against municipal environmental rules exempting small wastewater discharges from strict groundwater protection.
kho-other_2016_1011
Supreme Administrative Court quashes lower court decision for failing to determine legality of water diversion right.
kho-other_2021_419
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal as lower court correctly rejected insufficient groundwater flow study evidence.
kho-other_2016_2010
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal against water authority's rejection of flood damage compensation claim. Damages not covered by Water Act as caused by natural events, not regulation violations.

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

Ympäristönsuojelulautakunnan vesilain 20 luvun 5 §:n nojalla

asianosaisille antama kehotus sopia asia ei ole sellainen asian

lopullinen ratkaisu, johon saadaan hakea muutosta valittamalla.

Koska ojituksesta johtuvaksi väitetyn vahingon korvaamisen

ratkaiseminen tässä tapauksessa kuului vesilain 1 luvun 18

§:n 1 momentin, 6 luvun 2 §:n 1 momentin sekä 11 luvun 1 §:n

3 momentin ja 8 §:n 4 momentin nojalla vesioikeuden toimivaltaan,

ympäristönsuojelulautakunnan olisi asian kiireellisen

luonteen (talousveden saannin turvaaminen) vuoksi, kun asianosaiset

eivät lautakunnan katselmuksessa olleet päässeet sovintoon,

tullut siirtää asian käsittely välittömästi vesioikeudelle.

Lautakunnan kehotus sisälsi siten vahingonkärsijän

oikeusturvaa loukkaavan virheellisen hallintopäätöksen, joka

voitiin kantelun johdosta poistaa. (Ks. eri lyhenne Vesioikeuden/Ympäristönsuojelulautakunnan

toimivalta/Ojitusvahingon

korvaaminen/Jälkikorvaus)

HValL 3 §

HValL 1 §

HValL 2 §

Lainvoimainen