Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HAO 12.03.2010 10/0060/1 AI generated

Administrative court allows appeal against water law decision sent before official date.

Case Number Vaasan HAO 12.03.2010 10/0060/1
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court allowed the applicant's appeal against a water law enforcement decision, ruling that the appeal period begins on the day of the decision's official issuance. Although the decision was physically sent to the applicant before its formal date, the court held that this delay cannot accelerate the start of the statutory appeal timeline. Consequently, the appeal filed on June 30, 2009, was deemed timely as it fell within the period calculated from the official June 1, 2009, date.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vesilain 17 luku 1 §; The appeal period for administrative decisions under water law commences on the day of the decision's official issuance, regardless of when the document was physically delivered to the party.

Keywords

AI generated
Water Law appeal period Official decision date Physical delivery delay Administrative procedure timing Statutory limitation start Environmental enforcement appeal Procedural deadline calculation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 17 Section 1
AI generated
admin_1993_water-superior__83
Administrative court dismissed appeal by extending limitation period due to delayed notification of water authority decision.
kho-other_2017_5787
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal, upholding stricter environmental storage rules for small power plants over permit terms.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2024:78
Appeal granted where contradictory court guidance in an administrative decision rendered the appeal notice legally defective under administrative procedure law.
admin_2010_turku__442
Administrative court dismisses appeal where decision served via interpreter counts as valid service despite applicant's language barriers.
admin_1992_hame-county__398
Administrative court dismissed appeal because city council failed to notify decision to applicant as required by 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

Ympäristölupavirasto oli 1.6.2009 antamallaan päätöksellä hylännyt vesilain mukaisen hallintopakkohakemuksen. Hakija oli saantitodistuksen mukaan saanut hylkäävän päätöksen tiedoksi 29.5.2009.

Hakijan valitus oli saapunut ympäristölupavirastoon 30.6.2009.

Ympäristölupavirasto ja vastapuoli olivat esittäneet valituksen jättämistä määräajan jälkeen tehtynä tutkimatta.

Hallinto-oikeus katsoi, että valitusaika voi alkaa kulua aikaisintaan päätöksen antamispäivästä, sitä päivää lukuun ottamatta. Se, että hakijalle oli lähetetty päätös ennen sen antopäivää ei voi aikaistaa valitusajankohtaa. Siten hakijan valitusaika ympäristölupaviraston päätökseen oli alkanut 1.6.2009 ja määräaikalain mukaisesti laskettuna päättynyt 1.7.2009. Valitus oli tehty määräajassa.

Vesilaki 17 luku 1 §