Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HAO 31.12.2009 09/0431/1 AI generated

Administrative court quashes permit decision for failing to conduct mandatory public hearing under Water Act.

Case Number Vaasan HAO 31.12.2009 09/0431/1
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 quashed the Environmental Permit Authority's decision to deny a permit for a sewage pipe installation without holding a public hearing. The Authority had incorrectly applied the provision for minor cases, arguing the project was insignificant, while the applicant contended the project could affect others' rights. The court ruled that the project's potential impact on third parties necessitated a full public hearing under the Water Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Water Act Chapter 16 Sections 7, 8 and 9: A permit application must be subject to a public hearing if the project may affect the rights and interests of others, regardless of its size.

Keywords

AI generated
Water Act public hearing Environmental permit procedure Minor cases exemption Third party rights Administrative court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 16 Sections 7, 8 and 9
AI generated
admin_2002_vaasa__50
Administrative court dismissed appeal; Environmental Agency lacked jurisdiction to handle mining permit without water pollution.
kho-other_2014_1353
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; environmental permit denied due to missing badger impact assessment.
kho-other_2016_4211
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal against environmental permit for peat production regarding groundwater protection. The court upholds the lower court's decision based on the Water Management Plan. The court finds the permit compliant with environmental standards despite proximity to groundwater areas. The decision emphasizes that the Water Management Plan's ecological status assessment is decisive for permit approval. The court rejects arguments that the permit violates groundwater protection laws. The ruling confirms the validity of the administrative decision under Finnish environmental law.
kko-other_2012_202
Supreme Court dismisses appeal withdrawal objection, ruling withdrawal does not automatically suspend oral hearing proceedings.
kho-other_2015_3784
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses complaints against an environmental permit for quarrying operations in Finland.

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

Vesiosuuskunta oli hakenut ympäristölupavirastolta lupaa 2700 metrin pituisen siirtoviemärin asentamiseen järven pohjaan.

Ympäristölupavirasto ei ollut toimittanut hakemusta käsitellessään vesilain 16 luvun 7 ja 8 §:n mukaista kuulemista vaan se oli päättänyt vesilain 16 luvun 9 §:ään nojautuen enempää tiedoksiantoa toimittamatta varata alueelliselle ympäristökeskukselle ja kunnan ympäristönsuojeluviranomaiselle tilaisuuden antaa lausunto hakemuksen johdosta.

Hallinto-oikeus kumosi ympäristölupaviraston päätöksen ja palautti asian uudelleen käsiteltäväksi. Vesilain 16 luvun 9 § koskee merkitykseltään vähäisiä sekä sellaisia hakemusasioita, joissa vesilain 16 luvun 7 ja 8 §:n mukainen tiedoksianto ei ole asian laadun vuoksi tarpeen. Kyseistä siirtoviemärin asentamista järven pohjaan ei voitu pitää vesilain 16 luvun 9 §:ssä tarkoitettuna merkitykseltään vähäisenä hakemusasiana. Koska hanke saattoi vaikuttaa muiden oikeuteen ja etuun, hakemus tuli antaa tiedoksi vesilain 16 luvun 7 ja 8 §:n mukaisesti.

Vesilaki 16 luku 7, 8, ja 9 §