Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 26.5.1994 125/1994 AI generated

Administrative court ruled that water damage compensation claims must be filed regardless of prior settlement agreements.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 26.5.1994 125/1994
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 annulled a decision by the Water Authority that made the filing of a compensation claim conditional upon the absence of a prior settlement. The authority had argued that if damages were already agreed upon, no further claim could be filed. The court held that the statutory duty to file a claim for damage assessment is mandatory and cannot be made dependent on whether a settlement exists.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 16 luku 21 §; VesiL 16 luku 24 § 2 mom: The obligation of a permit holder to file a claim for the assessment of damages caused by water-related operations is mandatory and cannot be made conditional upon a prior settlement of those damages.

Keywords

AI generated
water damage compensation mandatory claim filing prior settlement exclusion administrative procedure permit holder duty conditional obligation Water Act 1993

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 16 luku 21 §
VesiL 16 luku 24 § 2 mom
VesiL 16 luku 24 § 2 mom
AI generated
admin_1996_water-superior__130
Damages claim for water project harm not dependent on current property ownership status.
admin_1993_water-superior__240
Administrative court allows full compensation for land erosion when safety concerns are not met under water law.
admin_1989_water-superior__29
Administrative court dismissed city's refusal of boat pier permit due to lack of neighbor notification.
kko-other_1998_1730
Supreme Court dismisses appeal as applicant withdrew the complaint, halting further proceedings.
admin_1988_water-superior__140
Administrative court dismissed water authority's permit due to missing mandatory groundwater impact studies.

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

VEO oli vesilain 16 luvun 24 §:n 2 momentin nojalla määrännyt

luvanmukaisista toimenpiteistä ja töistä aiheutuvien vahinkojen

korvaamisen ratkaistavaksi myöhemmin luvan saajan määräajassa

tehtävästä hakemuksesta. Hakemus oli tehtävä vain, ellei

korvauksista ollut sovittu.

VYO totesi, että koska vahingon aiheutuminen ja sen korvaaminen

on vesilain 16 luvun 21 §:n nojalla tutkittava viran puolesta,

luvan saajalle asetettu velvollisuus hakea lupapäätöksen

täydentämistä ei voi olla ehdollinen. Luvan saajan on tehtävä

hakemus siihen liitettävine selvityksineen, vaikka se

katsoisi kaikista vahingoista jo sovitun. VEO:n päätöksestä

poistettiin velvoitteeseen liittyvä ehdollisuus.

VesiL 16 luku 21 §

VesiL 16 luku 24 § 2 mom

Lainvoimainen