Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:2000:44 AI generated

Supreme Administrative Court dismissed Natura 2000 site boundary inclusion due to lack of ecological significance.

Case Number KHO:2000:44
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 applicant's request to include a forest area in a Natura 2000 site boundary. The applicant argued the forest was ecologically significant, but the Environmental Centre contended the forest patterns did not represent key species or types under the Directive. The court ruled that without evidence of ecological importance, the area could not be legally designated as part of the protected site.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC; Natura 2000 site boundaries must be based on areas of community interest, and areas lacking ecological significance for designated species or habitats cannot be included in the protected network.

Keywords

AI generated
Natura 2000 site boundary ecological significance forest area wildlife directive environmental protection land use

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Directive 92/43/EEC
AI generated
kho-precedent_2001_59
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeals against national land use goals as they do not directly affect property rights.
kho-precedent_2000_40
Supreme Administrative Court quashed decision for insufficient scientific data on Natura 2000 site inclusion.
kko-precedent_2006_88
Supreme Court reduces sentence for environmental destruction where some logging violated coastal plan but others did not.
kho-precedent_2010_63
Court dismisses Natura 2000 protection due to insufficient hunting bans and unclear water management rules.
kho-other_2017_4110
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses planning appeals regarding a zoning plan, ruling the lower court correctly excluded land acquisition claims.

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

Natura 2000 -ehdotukseen sisällytetyn kohteen yhden osa-alueen rajaus käsitti maanomistajan hakemuksesta rauhoitetun järvi- ja metsäalueen lisäksi saman maanomistajan luonnonsuojelualueeseen rajoittuvan metsä-alueen. Ympäristökeskus oli maanomistajan viimeksi mainittua aluetta koskevan hakkuuilmoituksen johdosta ilmoittanut, että ilmoituksessa mainitut metsäkuviot eivät sijainneet suojelullisesti keskeisellä alueella eivätkä edustaneet direktiiviluontotyypin esiintymiä. Hakkuilla ei siten olisi haitallisia vaikutuksia Natura 2000 -alueen perustana oleviin luontotyyppeihin tai lajeihin.