Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1999:65 AI generated

Construction permit denied because watercourse regulations do not apply to artificial lakes and landowner projects on private land.

Case Number KHO:1999:65
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 application for a construction permit for a dam on an artificial lake. The court held that the watercourse regulations in Chapter 2 of the Water Act do not apply because the feature was not a natural watercourse. Furthermore, since the majority of the construction was intended to be carried out by a third-party landowner, the permit could not be issued under Chapter 1, Section 17(2) of the Water Act, which only covers projects causing damage to another's land.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Water Act Chapter 1 Section 2; Water Act Chapter 1 Section 17(2): Construction permits for artificial lakes and projects executed by third parties on private land do not fall under the specific watercourse regulations and damage-based permit requirements.

Keywords

AI generated
artificial lake definition watercourse regulations scope third party landowner construction permit denial private land damage

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Water Act Chapter 1 Section 2
Water Act Chapter 1 Section 17(2)
AI generated
admin_1989_water-superior__50
Administrative court quashes water authority decision for lack of specific property identification and compensation.
kko-precedent_1991_12
Supreme Court allows conviction for water law violation due to operating without valid permit.
admin_1999_water-superior__62
Residence near a water project does not grant standing in a water law permit case.
admin_1988_central-finland-county__744
Administrative court dismissed state's claim to own road area as separate property due to lack of ownership.
admin_1997_water-superior__153
Water law permit denied for cross-border construction without neighbor consent under Finnish Water Act.

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

Koska uomia, joiden patoamista tekojärven rakentaminen edellytti, ei voitu pitää laissa tarkoitettuna vesistönä, ei rakentamislupaan voitu suoraan soveltaa vesistörakentamista koskevia vesilain 2 luvun säännöksiä. Koska suurin osa suunnitelman mukaisesta rakentamisesta oli tarkoitus suorittaa toisen omistamalla maalla, lupaa ei voitu myöntää myöskään vesilain 1 luvun 17 §:n 2 momentin nojalla, koska sanotun lainkohdan 1 momentin sanamuoto huomioon ottaen lainkohdassa tarkoitetaan vain sellaisia hankkeita, jotka hakija suorittaa omalla tai muutoin laillisesti hallitsemallaan alueella, mutta joiden seuraukset aiheuttavat vahinkoa toisen omistamalle maalle.

Vesilaki 1 luku 2 § ja 17 §