Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HAO 5.5.2004 04/0150/1 AI generated

City council's right to use purchase right for protection purposes without specific plan in environmental value area dismissed.

Case Number Turun HAO 5.5.2004 04/0150/1
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 city council's decision to exercise its purchase right for protection purposes without a specific plan. The plaintiff argued the council lacked a defined usage purpose for the property, while the council claimed the right existed under the Purchase Right Act. The court ruled that the absence of a specific plan negated the council's authority to exercise the purchase right in this context.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Etuostolaki 1 § 1 mom; 1 § 3 mom: The right of a municipality to exercise the purchase right for protection purposes does not exist without a specific plan, even if the property is located in an area with environmental values.

Keywords

AI generated
purchase right protection purposes specific plan environmental values municipal authority administrative review land use planning

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Etuostolaki 1 § 1 mom
Etuostolaki 1 § 3 mom
AI generated
kho-other_2017_3890
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeals regarding a wind farm plan, citing procedural errors and lack of evidence for bias.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2025:74
Supreme Administrative Court allows municipality to use purchase right to preserve recreational trail value in national park area.
kho-other_2017_2626
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal against planning decision where bird survey timing deviated from later ministerial guidelines.
kho-other_2016_3849
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal against wind farm zoning plan approval due to procedural errors and environmental impact concerns.
kho-other_2019_2295
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal regarding planning permit due to lack of procedural error and insufficient evidence of bias.

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

Oikeuskysymyksenä asiassa oli, onko kunnalla ilman nimenomaista suunnitelmaa etuosto-oikeus suojelutarkoituksia varten kiinteistön kaupassa oikeusvaikutuksettoman yleiskaavan maa- ja metsätalousalueella, jolla on ympäristöarvoja (MU/s).

A oli tehnyt kiinteistön kaupan perustettavan yhtiön lukuun. Kaupunginhallitus oli päättänyt käyttää etuosto-oikeutta arvokkaan kansallismaiseman suojelutarkoituksessa.

A vaati hallinto-oikeudessa päätöksen kumoamista muun muassa sillä perusteella, ettei kaupungilla ollut käyttötarkoitusta kyseiselle kiinteistölle.

Hallinto-oikeus hyväksyi valituksen ja kumosi kaupunginhallituksen päätöksen.

Etuostolaki 1 § 1 mom

Etuostolaki 1 § 3 mom