Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1998:59 AI generated

Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal against water authority's permit for gravel crushing on groundwater area.

Case Number KHO:1998:59
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 appeal against the water authority's decision granting a permit for gravel crushing operations. The applicant sought to process raw gravel on a site located approximately 400 meters from a municipal groundwater intake, despite the area being designated as a groundwater protection zone. The court upheld the permit because the operation was limited to short annual periods and did not pose a significant threat to the groundwater quality or quantity.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VesiL 1 luku 18 § 1 mom; VesiL 9 luku 8 §: The water authority may grant a permit for gravel crushing on a groundwater protection area if the operation is temporary and does not endanger the groundwater's quality or quantity.

Keywords

AI generated
gravel crushing permit groundwater protection area temporary operation water authority decision environmental impact assessment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VesiL 1 luku 18 § 1 mom
VesiL 9 luku 8 §
VesiL 1 luku 22 §
AI generated
kho-other_2015_2932
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal as amended environmental permit replaced the original 2003 permit legally.
kho-other_2016_3456
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal; soil extraction on geological formation violates nature protection law.
admin_2004_vaasa__127
Administrative court upheld environmental permit allowing immediate start of work before permit becomes final.
kko-precedent_1990_144
Supreme Court holds violation of water law permit conditions is punishable regardless of actual environmental damage.
admin_1989_water-superior__179
Administrative court dismissed mining permit due to significant groundwater damage outweighing benefits.

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

Vesioikeus myönsi 4.7.1996 vesilain 1 luvun 18 §:n ja 9 luvun 8 §:n nojalla yhtiö X:lle luvan soran murskaustoiminnan harjoittamiseen päätöksestä ilmenevin lupaehdoin. Murskausasema oli tarkoitus sijoittaa yhdyskuntien vedenhankinnan kannalta tärkeällä pohjavesialueella sijainneelle tilalle noin 400 metrin päähän pohjavedenottamosta, joka toimi kunnan varavedenottamona. Kysymyksessä olevalle sora-alueelle oli vuonna 1989 myönnetty maa-aineslain mukainen lupa, joka oli voimassa 17.7.1999 asti. Tarkoitus oli nyt jalostaa raakasoraa murskaamalla. Murskaustoimintaa oli tarkoitus harjoittaa maa-ainesten ottoluvan voimassaoloaikana vuosittain keskimäärin noin 2-3 viikkoa ja enimmillään alle kaksi kuukautta vuodessa.

VesiL 1 luku 18 § 1 mom

VesiL 9 luku 8 §

VesiL 1 luku 22 §