Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HAO 4.6.2004 04/0176/2 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed appeal by shareholder of residential building regarding environmental permit for power plant.

Case Number Vaasan HAO 4.6.2004 04/0176/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against an environmental permit granted to a pellet plant and power plant. Although the applicant owned a residential building near the facility, the court found that mere share ownership did not establish standing as a private party. Consequently, the court ruled that the applicant lacked the necessary voice rights under the Environmental Protection Act to challenge the permit.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Environmental Protection Act 1093/1994, s. 97; The court held that ownership of shares in a residential building does not confer standing on a private individual to challenge an environmental permit unless they reside in the building and have a direct voice right.

Keywords

AI generated
environmental permit standing shareholder private party residential building ownership Environmental Protection Act 1093/1994 administrative court jurisdiction voice rights requirement permit challenge eligibility

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Environmental Protection Act 1093/1994, s. 28
Environmental Protection Act 1093/1994, s. 97
AI generated
kho-precedent_2009_91
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against administrative board's decision to ignore appeal regarding coastal structure legality.
kho-other_2018_4379
Supreme Administrative Court partially allowed appeal against town council's coastal zone plan amendment due to insufficient environmental impact studies.
admin_2011_oulu__538
Court dismisses tax deduction claim when siblings use property as main residence, invalidating free-time residence status for owner.
admin_2012_helsinki__7
Administrative court dismissed appeal as plaintiffs lacked standing due to insufficient proximity and lack of direct impact.
kho-other_2016_4735
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal against town council's approval of a coastal master plan due to insufficient environmental impact studies.

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

Alueellinen ympäristökeskus oli myöntänyt yhtiö X:lle ympäristönsuojelulain 28 §:n mukaisen ympäristöluvan pellettitehtaalle ja voimalaitokselle.

Muutoksenhakija Y valitti ympäristökeskuksen päätöksestä. Y oli asianosaisasemansa perusteeksi muun ohella ilmoittanut omistavansa rivitaloasunnon, joka sijaitsi noin yhden kilometrin etäisyydellä laitoksesta.

Asianosaisten piirin muodostumisessa merkityksellisiä olivat lähinnä laitoksen ilmapäästöt. Hallinto-oikeus katsoi, että Y:n ilmoittama rivitaloasunto saattaisi olla hankkeen mahdollisella vaikutusalueella, mutta Y ei kohteen osalta ollut asianosainen, koska hän ei asunut tuossa kiinteistössä. Pelkkä asunnon hallintaan oikeuttava osakkeiden omistus ei perustanut asianosaisasemaa, vaan asianosaisen puhevallan katsottiin olevan rivitaloyhtiöllä sekä taloyhtiössä asuvilla. Asia ei saattanut koskea Y:n etua tai oikeutta ympäristönsuojelulain 97 §:n 1 momentin 1 kohdan tarkoittamalla tavalla. Hallinto-oikeus jätti valituksen tutkimatta.

KHO:ssa