Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HAO 26.10.2022 22/0044/1 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal, ruling first-instance court lacked power to update 1958 water law permit under current law.

Case Number Vaasan HAO 26.10.2022 22/0044/1
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 appeal against the first-instance decision, which had overturned the regional administration's order to update a 1958 water law permit. The appellant argued for changes to licensing conditions and monitoring obligations based on current regulations. The court held that the specific statutory provision intended to update permits only applies when the original law explicitly allows for partial modifications, which was not the case here.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vesilaki 19 luku 15 §: The administrative court lacks jurisdiction to update a permit granted under an older water law version to current law unless the specific provision explicitly authorizes partial modifications to the original terms.

Keywords

AI generated
water law permit administrative jurisdiction statutory interpretation permit update regulatory compliance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Vesilaki 19 luku 15 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:n päätös 19.12.2023 taltionumero 3734/2023
KHO:n päätös 19.12.2023 taltionumero 3734/2023: hallinto-oikeuden päätös kumotaan.
AI generated
kho-precedent_2015_101
Court dismisses appeal regarding environmental permit condition expiry due to legislative change. The court held that a specific condition for plan submission did not constitute a mandatory review obligation. The court ruled that the condition was not a review obligation subject to legislative change. The court found no grounds to alter the administrative court's decision based on the case facts. The court determined the condition was not a review obligation under the new law. The court concluded the condition was not a review obligation under the new law.
kho-precedent_2016_9
Supreme Administrative Court allowed partial permit amendment under Water Act 8.10a § despite new condition.
kho-other_2019_2992
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal regarding municipal council decisions and rejects fee reimbursement claims.
kho-other_2017_5984
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal regarding application of old Water Act final inspection rules after new law. The court held that post-2012 requests for old inspections are inadmissible under transition rules. The court ruled that the new Water Act's transition provisions exclude old final inspection rules from application after 1.1.2012. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal because the applicants' request for a final inspection under the old Water Act was time-barred. The court found that the new Water Act's transition rules explicitly exclude old final inspection provisions from application after 1.1.2012. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal as the applicants' request for a final inspection under the old Water Act was time-barred. The court held that the new Water Act's transition provisions exclude old final inspection rules from application after 1.1.2012. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal because the applicants' request for a final inspection under the old Water Act was time-barred.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2020:81
Supreme Administrative Court reversed lower court ruling on fishing duty changes under Water Act Section 23.23, finding changes not minor.

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

Elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskus oli hakenut aluehallintovirastossa vesilain 3 luvun

2 §:n perusteella Pyhäjärven säännöstelyluvan lupaehtojen muuttamista sekä kalatalous- ja tarkkailuvelvoitteen asettamista. Säännöstely perustui pääosin vesistötoimikunnan 20.12.1958 antamaan päätökseen nro 41/1958.

Aluehallintovirasto oli muuttanut vesistötoimikunnan antamia lupaehtoja sekä antanut uudet lupamääräykset kalatalousvelvoitteesta ja tarkkailusta. Muilta osin aluehallintovirasto oli määrännyt luvan saajan noudattamaan vuonna 1958 annettua lupaa. Aluehallintovirasto oli perustanut päätöksensä muun muassa vesilain 3 luvun säännöksiin ja 19 luvun 15 §:n 1 momentin säännökseen.

Pyhäjärven kalastusalue on valittanut Vaasan hallinto-oikeuteen kalatalousvelvoitteisiin liitty-vistä seikoista.

Hallinto-oikeus on tulkinnut, että kun vesilain 19 luvun 15 §:n säännöksessä ei ole mainintaa osittaisesta, esimerkiksi eräisiin lupamääräyksiin, kohdistuvista muutoksista, säännöksen tarkoituksena on vanhempaan lainsäädäntöön perustuvan luvan päivittäminen kokonaisuu-dessaan vesitalousluvaksi, johon sovelletaan nyt voimassa olevaa lakia. Hallinto-oikeus on katsonut, ettei sillä ole ensiasteena toimivaltaa määrätä vesistötoimikunnan päätöksellä vuonna 1958 myönnetyn vesitalousluvan muuttamisesta voimassa olevan vesilain mu-kaiseksi. Näin ollen aluehallintoviraston päätös on kumottu ja asia on palautettu aluehallin-tovirastossa uudelleen käsiteltäväksi.

Äänestys.

Vesilaki 19 luku 15 §

KHO:n päätös 19.12.2023 taltionumero 3734/2023: hallinto-oikeuden päätös kumotaan.