Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vesiylioikeus 25.1.1999 2/1999 AI generated

Administrative court dismisses competitors' appeal as they lack standing under water law and competition rules.

Case Number Vesiylioikeus 25.1.1999 2/1999
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 joint appeal filed by competing business operators B and C against a water authority's permit for a new store. The applicants argued that the construction infringed their private interests by distorting competition in maintenance services. The court ruled that the applicants did not acquire necessary standing to challenge the decision under competition law principles.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 16 luku 6 §; VesiL 16 luku 8 §: Competitors challenging a water authority's permit must demonstrate a direct private interest affected by the decision; mere potential competition without specific injury does not confer standing.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative standing water law permits competition distortion private interest competitor appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 16 luku 6 §
VesiL 16 luku 8 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO 1997:10
Company dismissed as non-party in water area permit case lacking legal standing or ownership.
VYO:n päätös T:83/1996
KHO 1997:10 (VYO:n päätös T:83/1996, A:5.6.1996)
A:5.6.1996
KHO 1997:10 (VYO:n päätös T:83/1996, A:5.6.1996)
AI generated
kho-precedent_2003_46
Driving school operators lacked standing to appeal a regional authority's decision granting a new license to a competitor on the same town.
market_2018_610
Market court dismisses public procurement complaint as it lacks standing since the contracting authority is not a party to the private contract dispute.
kho-other_2016_1621
Supreme Administrative Court suspends enforcement of competition fine pending appeal review under enforcement law.
kko-precedent_2002_38
Supreme Court dismisses claim for prize money when a club's promise to allow race entry was merely a security measure, not a binding contract granting race rights.
kko-precedent_1997_33
Supreme Court dismisses bribery charge against official for accepting travel benefits while influencing state grants.

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 myöntänyt A:lle luvan omistamansa vesialueen osan täyttämiseen

tie- ja vesiliikennettä palvelevaa myymälää varten.

Kilpailevat liikkeenharjoittajat B ja C vaativat VEO:n päätöksen

kumoamista ja lupahakemuksen hylkäämistä mm. sillä perusteella,

että rakentaminen loukkaa heidän yksityistä etuaan

vääristämällä kilpailua mm. huoltamoliiketoiminnassa.

VYO jätti B:n ja C:n yhteisen valituksen tutkimatta mm. sillä

perusteella, ettei heille synny asianosaisasemaa kilpailuoikeudellisten

seikkojen vuoksi.

VesiL 16 luku 6 §

VesiL 16 luku 8 §

KHO 1997:10 (VYO:n päätös T:83/1996, A:5.6.1996)

Lainvoimainen