Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1997:47 AI generated

Environmental permit appeal dismissed because permit did not affect plaintiffs' rights due to distance and size.

Case Number KHO:1997:47
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal against an environmental permit for converting a muck pit into a fish farm. The court found that the permit did not affect the plaintiffs' rights because the facility was located 770 to 1,840 meters away and was too small to impact their interests. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the decision under the Environmental Permitting Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

YmpäristölupamenettelyL 14 § 2 mom; A permit does not constitute a challengeable administrative act if it does not affect the applicant's rights or interests due to distance and scale.

Keywords

AI generated
environmental permit standing to sue distance requirement administrative review fish farm conversion muck pit plaintiff rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Ympäristölupamenettelylaki 14 § 2 mom
AI generated
admin_2012_helsinki__7
Administrative court dismissed appeal as plaintiffs lacked standing due to insufficient proximity and lack of direct impact.
kho-precedent_2012_10
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against building permit when property faces construction site diagonally across street intersection.
kho-precedent_2002_40
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal as building site is not opposite or adjacent to appellant's land.
kho-precedent_2004_26
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal regarding Natura 2000 site designation under Finnish nature protection laws.
kho-other_2017_2812
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeals against a town planning plan approval due to procedural time limits and lack of legal basis.

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

S:n kunnan tekninen lautakunta oli myöntänyt maanviljelijä R:lle ympäristöluvan 1.800 munituskanalan muuttamiseen 230 lihasian purusikalaksi. Valittajien kiinteistöt sijaitsivat 770-1.840 metrin etäisyydellä aiotusta sikalasta. Kun otettiin huomioon sikalan koko sekä sikalan ja valittajien kiinteistöjen välimatka, ympäristölupa ei saattanut koskea heidän etuaan ja oikeuttaan siten, että heillä olisi ollut oikeus valittaa lupapäätöksestä.

Äänestys 4-1.

YmpäristölupamenettelyL 14 § 2 mom