Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 5.4.1995 64/1995 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed water authority decision, transferring jurisdiction over dam legality to water authority under Water Act.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 5.4.1995 64/1995
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Finland dismissed the Water Superior Court's decision regarding the legality of a dam built by neighbor A. The court determined that questions concerning violations of the Water Act's prohibition rules or the need for a water authority permit fall exclusively within the Water Authority's jurisdiction, not the Water Superior Court's. Consequently, the court revoked the Water Superior Court's ruling and the Water Authority's decision on appeal, remanding the case for proper handling by the Water Authority to set maximum dam heights where permits were unnecessary.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Water Act Chapter 1 Section 17; Water Act Chapter 6 Section 12 Paragraph 2: Questions regarding violations of the prohibition rules in Chapter 1 or the necessity of a water authority permit fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the water authority, not the water superior court.

Keywords

AI generated
Water Act jurisdiction dam legality review administrative authority transfer prohibition rule violation permit requirement assessment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 1 Section 17
Water Act Chapter 6 Section 12 Paragraph 2
Water Act Chapter 21 Section 3
AI generated
kho-other_2026_1774
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against administrative court's revocation of threat penalty for water law violation.
admin_1996_water-superior__26
Administrative court dismissed appeal, ruling that water authority must obtain missing lake survey before issuing compensation decision.
kho-other_2015_3151
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal and allowed company to avoid paying litigation costs as non-public authority.
kko-precedent_1990_144
Supreme Court holds violation of water law permit conditions is punishable regardless of actual environmental damage.
admin_1992_water-superior__141
Administrative court upheld river closure denial but modified water power compensation and bank protection terms.

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

YSL:ssa ja VEO:ssa ratkaistussa asiassa naapureiden A:n ja B:n

välinen kiista koski sitä, oliko heidän kiinteistöjensä halki

kulkevaan ojaan A:n kiinteistölle rakennettu pato laillinen

vai vesilain 1 luvun 17 §:n kieltosäännöksen vastainen ja tuliko

se purkaa, ellei siihen saada VEO:n lupaa, vai voidaanko

se muuttaa sellaiseksi, ettei siitä aiheudu vahinkoa. VYO totesi,

että vesilain 6 luvun 12 §:n 2 momentin mukaan vesilain

1 luvun kieltosäännön rikkomista tai vesioikeuden luvan tarvetta

koskevat kysymykset eivät kuulu YSL:n vaan VEO:n päätäntävaltaan.

Sen vuoksi VYO kumosi ja poisti YSL:n asiassa tekemän

päätöksen sekä kumosi VEO:n päätöksen siltä osin kuin VEO

oli käsitellyt asian valitusasiana. VYO tutki asian välittömästi

virka-apuasiana, koska virheellinen käsittelyjärjestys

ei ollut vaikuttanut VEO:n lopputulokseen, ja VEO:n päätöstä

hieman muuttaen antoi määräykset enimmästä padotuskorkeudesta,

johon VEO:n lupa ei ollut tarpeen.

VesiL 1 luku 17 §

VesiL 6 luku 12 § 2 mom

VesiL 21 luku 3 §

Lainvoimainen