Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 14.12.1995 1566/2 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal against waste fee notice due to insufficient information in the fee notice document.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 14.12.1995 1566/2
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 a waste fee notice issued to a waste holder. The waste company, acting as a contractor, failed to include instructions for reminders or sufficient data regarding fee calculation in the notice. The court ruled that the notice lacked the mandatory informational requirements of the Waste Act, rendering the subsequent transfer of the case to the municipal authority invalid.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Waste Act 32 §; A waste fee notice must contain instructions for reminders and sufficient information for assessing the fee's basis and correctness; otherwise, the recipient may not be legally bound to pay.

Keywords

AI generated
Waste Act fee notice requirements administrative appeal insufficient information municipal liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Waste Act 32 §
AI generated
admin_2000_hameenlinna__484
Municipal waste fee tax violating equal treatment principle was declared invalid and the fee dismissed.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2022:141
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; waste fee claim not valid under Waste Act due to incorrect legal basis.
admin_1999_central-finland-county__380
Court dismissed appeal allowing parking fine based on new violation reason despite initial denial.
kho-precedent_2014_109
Supreme Administrative Court held official not biased despite bribery conviction due to sufficient time lapse and changed circumstances.
kko-precedent_2015_88
Supreme Court allows conviction for gross fraud and bookkeeping crime but dismisses business ban due to lack of necessity.

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

Kunta oli järjestänyt jätteenkuljetuksen käyttämällä kuljetuksen

suorittamisessa yksityistä yrittäjää. Tämän yhtiön

jätteen haltijalle lähettämässä jätemaksua koskevassa

maksulipussa ei ollut ohjeita muistutuksen tekemiseksi

eikä siitä ilmennyt riittäviä tietoja jätemaksun perusteiden

ja oikeellisuuden arvioimiseksi. Lääninoikeus siirsi

jätteen haltijan valituksen jätemaksun määräämisestä

ja maksuunapanosta päättävälle kunnan viranomaiselle käsiteltäväksi

jätelain 32 §:ssä tarkoitettuna muistutuksena.

JäteL 32 §