Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan LO 7.7.1995 512/III AI generated

Business operators not required to apply for environmental permit if operation started before law entry into force.

Case Number Vaasan LO 7.7.1995 512/III
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court allowed the business operators to continue operations without an environmental permit because their business began before the relevant law took effect. The court found that since the operation had not significantly changed after the law's entry into force, the operators could not be compelled to apply for a permit. Consequently, the court ruled that the requirement to obtain a permit did not apply to this specific historical context.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ympäristölupamenettelylain 12 §; 19 § 1 mom; 20 §: If a business operation commenced before the environmental procedure act entered into force and has not substantially changed since then, the operators cannot be obligated to apply for an environmental permit.

Keywords

AI generated
environmental permit requirement retroactive application business operation start date law entry into force administrative court decision procedural obligation substantial change test

Cited Legislation

AI generated
YmpäristölupamenettelyL 12 §
YmpäristölupamenettelyL 12 §
YmpäristölupamenettelyL 19 § 1 mom
YmpäristölupamenettelyL 19 § 1 mom
YmpäristölupamenettelyL 20 §
YmpäristölupamenettelyL 20 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:n päätös T:2459, A:12.8.1996
KHO:n päätös T:2459, A:12.8.1996: Lääninoikeuden päätös
AI generated
kho-other_2017_6355
Supreme Administrative Court extends environmental permit validity dates due to administrative delay in original decision.
kho-other_2016_1104
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal against environmental permit for peat production due to insufficient distance from protected lake.
kho-other_2018_26
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal against environmental permit for peat production due to lack of significant pollution risk.
admin_2005_vaasa__3
Administrative court dismissed appeal for lack of standing under environmental protection law and ordered costs.
kho-other_2015_3784
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses complaints against an environmental permit for quarrying operations in Finland.

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

Liikkeenharjoittaja A ja B Oy, jonka toimitusjohtaja A

oli, olivat aloittaneet liiketoiminnan K:n tilalla jo

1980 -luvulla. Kun liiketoiminta siten oli alkanut jo

ennen ympäristölupamenettelylain voimaantuloa 1.9.1992

ja kun toiminnan ei ollut selvitetty lain voimaantulon

jälkeen olennaisesti muuttuneen, ei A:ta ja B Oy:tä

voitu velvoittaa ympäristöluvan hakemiseen.

YmpäristölupamenettelyL 12 §

YmpäristölupamenettelyL 19 § 1 mom

YmpäristölupamenettelyL 20 §

Vrt. Kuusiniemi, Ympäristölupa (1993) s. 296

KHO:n päätös T:2459, A:12.8.1996: Lääninoikeuden päätös

kumottu. (ks. FKHO)