Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HAO 6.4.2004 04/0127/2 AI generated

Administrative court upheld environmental permit allowing immediate start of work before permit becomes final.

Case Number Vaasan HAO 6.4.2004 04/0127/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Finland upheld the Environmental Permit Authority's decision to allow the permit holder to begin work before the permit became legally binding. The Authority granted permission to extend a floating pontoon based on the Water Act, explicitly stating that no security deposit was required because the project's scale and location made it unlikely that damages or costs from revoking the decision would be foreseeable. The court agreed with this assessment, ruling that the administrative act was valid and the immediate commencement of work was lawful under the cited statutory provisions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Water Act 2 luvun 6 §:n 1 momentti; 2 luvun 26 §:n 1 momentti 3) kohta; 2 luvun 26 §:n 3 momentti: The court established that an administrative authority may grant a permit allowing immediate commencement of work before the permit becomes final if the specific circumstances render the calculation of potential damages or costs from revocation unforeseeable, thereby exempting the permit holder from providing a security deposit.

Keywords

AI generated
immediate commencement of work security deposit exemption Water Act provisions administrative permit validity foreseeable damages assessment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act 2 luvun 6 §:n 1 momentti
Water Act 2 luvun 26 §:n 1 momentti 3) kohta
Water Act 2 luvun 26 §:n 3 momentti
AI generated
kho-other_2016_5551
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeals regarding wind farm zoning, citing lack of standing for some plaintiffs and valid administrative procedure.
kho-precedent_2006_91
Supreme Administrative Court allows building permit when site is not on protected water body shore zone.
kho-other_2018_784
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; dredging significantly hinders non-binding master plan conservation goals.
kho-other_2015_1907
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal regarding noise limits in a mining permit, upholding original administrative decision.
kho-other_2016_2010
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal against water authority's rejection of flood damage compensation claim. Damages not covered by Water Act as caused by natural events, not regulation violations.

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

Ympäristölupavirasto oli, myöntäessään yksityiselle henkilölle ponttonilaiturin jatkamiseen vesilain 2 luvun 6 §:n 1 momentin mukaisen luvan, samalla myöntänyt vesilain 2 luvun 26 §:n 1 momentin 3) kohdan nojalla luvan saajalle oikeuden ryhtyä ennen päätöksen lainvoimaiseksi tulemista päätöksessä tarkoitettuihin töihin ja toimenpiteisiin.

Kyseinen kelluva laituri oli ennestään 18 m pitkä ja 2 m leveä. Laituri oli kiinnitetty pohjaan kettingeillä. Nyt kysymyksessä oleva lupahakemus tarkoitti laiturin jatkamista uudella samanlevyisellä, 9 m pitkällä kelluvalla ponttonilla.

Ympäristölupavirasto ei ollut määrännyt vesilain 2 luvun 26 §:n 3 momentin mukaista vakuutta talletettavaksi, koska hankkeen koko, sijainti ja paikalliset olosuhteet huomioon ottaen ei ennalta arvioiden ollut odotettavissa vahinkojen, haittojen ja kustannusten korvaamista, jotka päätöksen kumoaminen tai luvan ehtojen muuttaminen voisi aiheuttaa.

Hallinto-oikeus pysytti ympäristölupaviraston päätöksen voimassa.

KHO:ssa.