Vesiylioikeus 28.10.1994 213/1994 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal against permit transfer from military to Ministry of Defence property office.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 28.10.1994 213/1994

Court / Authority Hallinto-oikeus

Jurisdiction

Finland (FI)

Decision Date 28.10.1994

Outcome Dismissed

Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal against a decision transferring a water extraction permit from the Kymen Pioneer Battalion to the Ministry of Defence's property office. The original permit holder lacked authority to grant the permit, prompting the property office to request a formal opinion from the Ministry of Defence. The court upheld the transfer based on the Ministry's opinion and the statutory framework governing military property rights.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

7 § KHO:n päätös T:4123, A:11.10.1995: When a permit holder lacks authority to grant a permit, the competent authority may transfer the permit to the entity holding the property rights, and such a transfer decision is final if the superior authority issues a negative opinion on the transfer.

Keywords

AI generated

military property rights permit transfer authority administrative appeal dismissal competent authority opinion water extraction permit

Cited Legislation

AI generated

7 § KHO:n päätös T:4123, A:11.10.1995

AI generated

kho-other_2017_5984

Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal regarding application of old Water Act final inspection rules after new law. The court held that post-2012 requests for old inspections are inadmissible under transition rules. The court ruled that the new Water Act's transition provisions exclude old final inspection rules from application after 1.1.2012. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal because the applicants' request for a final inspection under the old Water Act was time-barred. The court found that the new Water Act's transition rules explicitly exclude old final inspection provisions from application after 1.1.2012. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal as the applicants' request for a final inspection under the old Water Act was time-barred. The court held that the new Water Act's transition provisions exclude old final inspection rules from application after 1.1.2012. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal because the applicants' request for a final inspection under the old Water Act was time-barred.

kho-precedent_2005_16

kho-precedent_2007_66

Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal due to lack of standing under Building Act 190 § 3. Appeal rejected without review as no leave to appeal granted.

kho-other_2018_1952

Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeals regarding a fish farm license extension, ruling the request was not new.

admin_1989_water-superior__21

Administrative court denied fishing association's appeal, ruling water law section 7(1) applies instead of 7(2) due to land area size.

Full text

Puolustushallinnon kiinteistöomaisuuden omistajapuhevaltaa

käyttää puolustusministeriön kiinteistöosasto. Koska Kymen

Pioneeripataljoonalla ei ollut toimivaltaa hakea lupaa vesistökoulutusrannan

ruoppaamiseen sekä laiturien ja penkereen

rakentamiseen, VYO, jolle oli valitettu VEO:n PionP:lle myöntämästä

luvasta, viran puolesta pyysi asiasta puolustusministeriön

kiinteistöosaston lausunnon. Kiinteistöosaston esityksestä

VYO, hylätessään valitukset luvan kumoamisesta,

muutti VEO:n päätöstä siten, että siinä tarkoitettu lupa

myönnettiin puolustusministeriölle.

A puolustusministeriöstä 7 §

KHO:n päätös T:4123, A:11.10.1995: Ei valituslupaa