Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1998:79 AI generated

Appeal dismissed because planning criteria approval is not a final decision subject to administrative review.

Case Number KHO:1998:79
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 city council's decision on planning criteria for coastal areas. The applicant argued that the decision required binding resolution of future planning criteria, but the court found the matter concerned preparatory work for the final plan approval. Consequently, under Section 91 of the Municipalities Act, no appeal was permissible against the criteria decision itself.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Kuntalaki 91 §; The approval of planning criteria for coastal areas during general planning is not a final decision subject to appeal under the Municipalities Act, as it pertains to preparatory work for the final plan approval.

Keywords

AI generated
Municipalities Act appeal planning criteria approval general plan preparation administrative review scope coastal area zoning

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 91 of the Municipalities Act
AI generated
kho-other_2018_4379
Supreme Administrative Court partially allowed appeal against town council's coastal zone plan amendment due to insufficient environmental impact studies.
kho-precedent_2003_102
Supreme Court dismisses landowner's appeal when zoning plan is partially revoked by lower court.
kho-precedent_2009_91
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against administrative board's decision to ignore appeal regarding coastal structure legality.
kho-other_2017_2813
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed late appeal on wind farm zoning plan due to procedural time limits and lack of legal basis.
admin_1991_turku-and-pori-county__774
Administrative court dismissed appeal as town council's decision only addressed implementation, not the underlying complaint.

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

Kaupunginvaltuusto hyväksyi ranta-alueiden yleiskaavoitusta jatkettaessa käytettävät mitoitusperusteet. Korkein hallinto-oikeus katsoi, että päätöksellä ei voitu sitovasti ratkaista, millaisin mitoitusperustein yleiskaava tullaan myöhemmin hyväksymään. Kun kysymys oli yleiskaavan hyväksymistä koskevan päätöksen valmistelusta, ei mitoitusperusteiden hyväksymistä koskevasta päätöksestä saanut kuntalain 91 §:n mukaan valittaa. Korkein hallinto-oikeus pysytti lopputulokseltaan voimassa lääninoikeuden päätöksen, jolla kunnan jäsenen valitus kaupunginvaltuuston päätöksestä oli jätetty tutkimatta.

Kuntalaki 91 §