Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 24.11.1993 236/1993 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed compensation claims for pre-1990 damages in a new fishing license case under Water Act.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 24.11.1993 236/1993
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 Finnish Environment Institute's decision to exclude pre-1990 damages from a new fishing license application. The applicant had operated since 1986, but the court held that compensation claims for damages occurring before the new license were not admissible in the current proceedings. Consequently, the court upheld the decision to leave those historical damages unexamined.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Water Act Chapter 11 Section 8 Paragraph 2; Claims for damages predating the effective date of a new permit are not admissible for examination in the proceedings for that permit.

Keywords

AI generated
Water Act fishing license compensation claims pre-existing damages procedural admissibility

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 11 Section 8 Paragraph 2

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO decision T:540, A:1.3.1995
AI generated
kho-precedent_2004_98
Court allows amendment of fishery duties and fees based on changed environmental conditions under Water Act.
kho-other_2018_1951
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal regarding fish farm license extension, ruling new extension request not admissible.
kko-precedent_1989_83
Supreme Court dismisses water damage claim as statute of limitations expired upon work completion, not notification.
admin_1991_water-superior__189
Administrative court dismissed water supply damage claims as barred by general ten-year limitation period.
kko-precedent_1998_131
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; sale of collateral without public notice does not constitute security right infringement.

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

Yhtiö A oli harjoittanut tilaan kuuluvalla vesialueella kalankasvatustoimintaa

vuodesta 1986 alkaen. VEO oli antanut A:lle

täytäntöönpanokelpoisen kalankasvatusluvan 13.9.1990. Lupaan

liittyvän erityisen määräyksen mukaisesti VEO oli tutkinut A:n

luvan mukaisesta toiminnasta aineutuneet vahingot B:n vireillepanemassa,

C:n jatkamassa lupahakemusasiassa.

Koska B tai C eivät olleet 1986-1990 harjoittaneet alueella

kalankasvatustoimintaa eikä A ollut asiassa hakijana,

13.9.1990 voimaan tullutta lupaa edeltäviä vahinkoja koskevia

korvausvaatimuksia ei voitu vesilain 11 luvun 8 §:n 2 momentin

nojalla tutkia C:n lupahakemusasiassa. VYO pysytti VEO:n päätöksen

lopputuloksen, jolla VYO katsoi VEO:n jättäneen mainitut

vahingot tutkimatta.

VesiL 11 luku 8 § 2 mom

KHO:n päätös T:540, A:1.3.1995: Ei valituslupaa