Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 18.12.1997 174/1997 AI generated

Administrative court denied water license due to landscape damage outweighing minor fishery benefits.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 18.12.1997 174/1997
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 revoked the water authority's decision to grant a license for river restoration and denied the applicant's appeal. The authority had approved the project to improve salmon migration, but the court found the river's current state already offered sufficient passage. The applicant argued that the project would significantly damage the cultural landscape and their property rights. The court ruled that the minor additional benefits from widening the river did not justify the substantial harm to the landscape and cultural heritage.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 2 luku 6 ) 2 mom; 2:6.1 vs 2:6.2: A water license may be denied if the public interest in the project is outweighed by the damage to the landscape and cultural heritage, requiring a stricter assessment under alternative statutory provisions.

Keywords

AI generated
water license denial landscape protection cultural heritage damage salmon migration benefits proportionality test administrative review public interest balance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 2 luku 6 ) 2 mom
VL 2:6.1
A:n etua siinä määrin, ettei lupaa voitu myöntää VL 2:6.1:n
VL 2:6.2

Cited Case Law

AI generated
T:826
A:20.4.1999
AI generated
admin_1992_water-superior__141
Administrative court upheld river closure denial but modified water power compensation and bank protection terms.
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.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2021:50
Construction permit granted without planning review; environmental and aviation permits insufficient for land use change planning requirement.
kho-other_2018_1951
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal regarding fish farm license extension, ruling new extension request not admissible.
kko-other_2010_2458
Supreme Court dismisses appeal withdrawal objection, ruling procedural silence does not equate to formal withdrawal.

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

VEO oli VL 2:3:n ja 2:6.1:n nojalla myöntänyt luvan mm. erään

kosken kalataloudelliseen kunnostamiseen. Toimenpiteiden tarkoituksena

oli parantaa kalojen nousua kosken yläpuolelle sekä

lisätä koskessa taimenen kutu-, poikas- ja elinalueita.

VYO arvioi, ettei koski nykyisellään muodosta ehdotonta nousuestettä

taimenelle. Tarvittava kalojen nousun helpottaminen

voidaan tehdä leventämättä koskea ja purkamatta A:n omistaman

vanhan myllypadon jäänteitä ja niiden varassa olevaa A:n siltaa.

Kosken kunnostus taimenen kudulle ja poikasille sopivaksi

voidaan sekin tehdä puuttumatta kosken rantoihin ja myllypadon

rakenteisiin. Kosken leventämisellä saatava lisäala ja lisähyöty

olisivat koko kunnostettavaan alaan nähden pienet.

A:n tila koskimaisemineen ja rakennuksineen oli maisemallisesti

arvokas ja A:n kannalta kunnostustoimenpiteet olivat mittavat

ja turmelivat myllytilan kulttuurimaisemaa. Hanke loukkasi

A:n etua siinä määrin, ettei lupaa voitu myöntää VL 2:6.1:n

mukaan, vaan lupaedellytykset oli harkittava 2:6.2:n nojalla.

Yrityksestä saatavaa hyötyä ei voitu pitää siitä johtuvaan

haittaan verrattuna huomattavana eikä viimeksi mainitun lainkohdan

mukaisia luvan myöntämisen edellytyksiä ollut. Näin

ollen VYO kumosi VEO:n päätöksen ja hylkäsi hakemuksen tältä

osin.

VesiL 2 luku 6 ) 2 mom

T:826, A:20.4.1999:

KHO:n päätös Ei valituslupaa