Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 16.5.1997 52/1997 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed compensation claim for exceeding mill dam height under Water Act Section 11.8.2.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 16.5.1997 52/1997
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 plaintiff's compensation claim regarding damages from exceeding the mill dam's height. The plaintiff argued the claim fell under Water Act Section 11.8.2, while the defendant contended it was merely a request to change a temporary dam to a permanent one. The court ruled that the specific statutory conditions for compensation under that section were not met, leading to the rejection of the claim.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Water Act Section 11.8.2; The court held that compensation claims arising from exceeding a dam's height are only admissible if they constitute a request to convert a temporary dam into a permanent one, as defined by the statute.

Keywords

AI generated
Water Act Section 11.8.2 dam height compensation temporary to permanent dam administrative compensation claim mill dam regulation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Section 11.8.2

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO decision T:1170, A:23.6.1998
AI generated
admin_1998_water-superior__28
Administrative court dismissed late appeal regarding final water damage compensation ruling due to procedural delay.
admin_1993_water-superior__135
Administrative court dismissed water authority's claim for pre-approval damages when no prior demand was made.
kko-precedent_1989_83
Supreme Court dismisses water damage claim as statute of limitations expired upon work completion, not notification.
kko-precedent_2003_59
Supreme Court allows contract-based claim for compensation, ruling it does not require expropriation law procedures.
admin_1990_water-superior__120
Administrative court dismissed appeal; prior damage compensation applies under Water Act, not general tort law.

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

VYO katsoi, ettei myllylaitoksen padotuskorkeuden ylittämisestä

johtuvia vahinkoja koskeva korvausvaatimus ollut sellainen

vesilain 11 luvun 8 ):n 2 momentissa tarkoitettu korvausvaatimus,

joka voitiin käsitellä säännöstelypadon muuttamista kiinteäksi

padoksi koskevassa hakemusasiassa. VEO:n päätös, jolla

vaatimuksen katsottiin tulleen tutkituksi ja hylätyksi, poistettiin.

VesiL 11 luku 8 ) 2 mom

KHO:n päätös T:1170, A:23.6.1998

Ei valituslupaa