Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 09.11.1976 1095/76 AI generated

Jurisdiction dispute over water pollution damages: appeal court remands case to local court under Water Act.

Case Number Vaasan HO 09.11.1976 1095/76
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and remanded the case to the district court regarding water pollution damages and pipe relocation costs. The plaintiff argued for compensation, but the court determined the claim did not involve groundwater contamination as defined by the Water Act. Consequently, jurisdiction belonged to the lower court under specific sections of the Water Act, leading to the remand.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Water Act Chapter 14, Sections 1 and 7; Jurisdiction over claims for damages from water pollution in closed distribution networks lies with the district court, not the court of appeal, when groundwater contamination is not alleged.

Keywords

AI generated
Water Act jurisdiction closed water network water pollution damages district court competence groundwater contamination distinction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 14, Section 1
Water Act Chapter 14, Section 7

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Supreme Court 1975-II-27
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KHO:2023:108
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal, quashing permit due to insufficient survey and flawed interest comparison in floating bridge case.
admin_1993_water-superior__22
Administrative court dismissed appeal regarding water diversion license and compensation under Water Act provisions.
appeal_1981_eastern-finland__288
Court dismissed claim for damages based on breach of contract due to lack of specific performance request.
admin_1991_water-superior__175
Construction permit holder not liable for municipal water main freezing damages under Finnish Water Act.
admin_1989_water-superior__74
Administrative court dismissed owner's claim for official aid to replace a dam blocking navigation.

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

Vesijohtoverkostossa olleen veden pilaamista ja tästä aiheutuneiden vesijohdon siirtämiskustannusten korvaamista koskeva kanne kuului yleisen tuomioistuimen toimivaltaan. - Koska ei ollut väitettykään, että vahingonkorvausvaatimus perustuisi vesilaissa tarkoitettuun pohjaveden pilaamiseen, vaan kysymyksessä oli suljetussa vesijohtoverkostossa olevan veden pilaaminen ja tästä aiheutuneiden vesijohdon siirtämiskustannusten korvaaminen ja kun asian tutkiminen näin ollen, ottaen huomioon vesilain 14 luvun 1 ja 7 §:n säännökset, kuului kihlakunnanoikeuden toimivaltaan, hovioikeus palautti jutun kihlakunnanoikeuteen, joka oli katsottuaan, että asia oli käsiteltävä vesiasiana, jättänyt sen tutkittavaksi ottamatta.

Vrt. KKO:1975-II-27

Laki maa-alueilla tapahtuvien öljyvahinkojen torjumisesta

20.12.1974/977.

Lainvoimainen