Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 9.6.1994 135/1994 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal, ruling lake dredging is a general water body work, not a specific obstruction removal case.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 9.6.1994 135/1994
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 Water Authority's decision to reject a lake dredging application. The Authority had denied the request because the dredged material could not be placed on the owner's land without violating specific transport route regulations. The court clarified that general lake restoration works fall under Chapter 2 of the Water Act, excluding the special provisions of Chapter 4, Section 6, Paragraph 2 which only apply to removing obstructions in specific water bodies.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Water Act Chapter 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1; Water Act Chapter 4, Section 6, Paragraph 2: Dredging for lake restoration constitutes a general water body work governed by Chapter 2, not the special obstruction removal rules of Chapter 4, Section 6, Paragraph 2.

Keywords

AI generated
lake dredging classification water body work scope obstruction removal exception dredged material placement administrative court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1
Water Act Chapter 2, Section 7
Water Act Chapter 4, Section 6, Paragraph 2
AI generated
admin_1997_water-superior__153
Water law permit denied for cross-border construction without neighbor consent under Finnish Water Act.
kho-precedent_1999_65
Construction permit denied because watercourse regulations do not apply to artificial lakes and landowner projects on private land.
kho-other_2015_3897
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal and inspection request regarding a seawall permit under the Water Act.
kho-precedent_2006_91
Supreme Administrative Court allows building permit when site is not on protected water body shore zone.
admin_1989_water-superior__50
Administrative court quashes water authority decision for lack of specific property identification and compensation.

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

Järven kunnostamiseksi tehtävä ruoppaus on vesilain 2 luvun 1

§:n 1 momentissa tarkoitettu vesistön perkaamistyö, johon sovelletaan

saman luvun rakentamista koskevia säännöksiä ja myös

oikeus ruoppausmassojen sijoittamiseen toisen alueelle on ratkaistava

vesilain 2 luvun säännösten eikä vesilain 4 luvun 6

§:n 2 momentin erityissäännöksen mukaan. Viimeksimainittu koskee

vain vesilain 1 luvun 30 §:ssa tarkoitettua vesistöä haittaavan

esteen poistamista sekä kulkuväylää ja muuta vesiliikennealuetta.

Vesioikeuden päätös, jolla järven etelärannan

ruoppaushakemus oli hylätty sillä perusteella, ettei ruoppausmassoja

voitu kokonaisuudessaan sijoittaa sille vesialueelle,

jolle omistajien suostumus oli saatu eikä oikeutta maalle läjittämiseen

voitu vesilain 1 luvun 30 §:n 2 momentin ja 4 luvun

6 §:n 2 momentin nojalla antaa, kumottiin ja asia palautettiin

vesioikeudelle uudelleen käsiteltäväksi.

VesiL 2 luku 1 § 1 mom

VesiL 2 luku 7 §

VesiL 4 luku 6 § 2 mom

Lainvoimainen