Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HAO 24.03.2026 359/2026 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal against environmental authority's refusal to approve piling noise notification due to lack of required consultations.

Case Number Vaasan HAO 24.03.2026 359/2026
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Vaasa dismissed the applicant's appeal against the environmental authority's decision to reject a noise notification for a piling project. The authority refused the notification because the project involved endangered species during spawning season and lacked mandatory consultations with other agencies. The court upheld the decision, ruling that the authority correctly applied the law by requiring these procedural steps before approval.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ympäristönsuojelu laki 27 §; 118 §; 121 §; 122 §; Ympäristönsuojeluasetus 24 §: The environmental authority must obtain consultations from other relevant authorities before approving a noise notification for construction activities affecting endangered species.

Keywords

AI generated
environmental noise notification endangered species protection mandatory consultations administrative procedure piling construction project spawning season restrictions administrative court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Ympäristönsuojelu laki 27 §
Ympäristönsuojelu laki 118 §
Ympäristönsuojelu laki 121 §
Ympäristönsuojelu laki 122 §
Ympäristönsuojeluasetus 24 §
Ympäristönsuojeluasetus 24 §
Hallintolaki 31 §
Hallintolaki 31 § ja 34 §
Hallintolaki 34 §
AI generated
kho-other_2018_2664
KHO 5.6.2018/2664
kho-other_2018_908
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal regarding procurement contract where administrative court correctly applied market court jurisdiction exclusion.
kho-precedent_2004_37
Environmental permit appeal dismissed; court upheld decision based on statutory interpretation of environmental protection law.
kho-other_2015_1468
Permit denied for peat production due to significant pollution risks to fish populations under environmental protection law.
kho-other_2015_3196
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal against environmental permit regarding quarrying and water discharge rules.

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

Kaupungin ympäristönsuojeluviranomainen oli antanut päätöksen toiminnanharjoittajan tekemästä meluilmoituksesta koskien paalutusta ajalla 28.8.2025 - 30.9.2026. Hanke käsitti alueelle rakentuvan asuinalueen kunnallistekniikan ja katurakenteiden vahvistamisen paalutuksin. Lisäksi purouomaa siirrettiin, johon liittyi uuden siltarummun rakentaminen sekä vanhan siltarummun purkutyöt. Puron kalastoon kuuluu uhanalainen meritaimen, jonka kutuaikana toimenpiteitä suoritettiin. Hankkeen etäisyys lähimpiin asuinkiinteistöihin oli noin 50 metriä. Ilmoituksesta ei ollut pyydetty lausuntoja muilta viranomaisilta.

Ympäristönsuojelulaki 27 §, 118 §, 121 § ja 122 §

Ympäristönsuojeluasetus 24 §

Hallintolaki 31 § ja 34 §