Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
M 4732-23 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; water court fishing agreement review falls under Environmental Code Chapter 24 Section 13.

Case Number M 4732-23
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Sweden (SE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Sweden dismissed the appeal against a water court's decision regarding a fishing promotion agreement. The appellant argued that the agreement should be subject to review under Chapter 24, Section 13 of the Environmental Code. The court rejected this, holding that the specific nature of the water court's decision excluded it from the mandatory review provisions cited.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

24 kap. 13 § miljöbalken; 24 kap. 13 § miljöbalken; A decision by a water court establishing a fishing promotion agreement for public fishing is not subject to the mandatory review procedures mandated by Chapter 24, Section 13 of the Environmental Code.

Keywords

AI generated
Environmental Code fishing promotion agreement mandatory review procedures water court decision administrative appeal dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
24 kap. 13 § miljöbalken
att beslut i en vattendom att fastställa avtal om fiskefrämjande åtgärder för det allmänna fisket omfattas av tillämpningsområdet för bestämmelserna om omprövning i 24 kap. 13 § miljöbalken.
AI generated
M 1311-07
Environmental court quashes lower court decision due to failure to notify property owners before issuing fishing ban.
ÖM 2170-24
Modern environmental conditions review dismissed as no ancient rights or special rights apply to the activity.
M 8673-15, M 8882-15, M 2620-16
Court limits fish farming permit duration to 2020 due to phosphorus discharge concerns despite industry arguments.
1259-25
Supreme Administrative Court upholds government decision on fishing lease despite Sami reindeer herding rights claims.
B 276-95
Supreme Court dismisses fishing charge because border commission lacked valid parliamentary authority to issue the ban.

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

MÖD har bedömt bl.a. att beslut i en vattendom att fastställa avtal om fiskefrämjande åtgärder för det allmänna fisket omfattas av tillämpningsområdet för bestämmelserna om omprövning i 24 kap. 13 § miljöbalken.