Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KHO 13.4.2018/1770 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal permission request due to lack of grounds for further review.

Numero d'incarto KHO 13.4.2018/1770
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal permission request filed by Pro Petäjäs ry and its 48 associates regarding a land-use plan. The court found no sufficient grounds to grant permission for the case to proceed to a final decision based on the arguments presented and the available documents. Consequently, the appeal was not heard, and the lower court's decision remained in effect.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki 188 § 3 momentti; Hallintolainkäyttölaki 13 § 2 momentti: An appeal permission request is denied when the reviewing court determines that the case lacks the necessary grounds for a final decision based on the submitted arguments and evidence.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
appeal permission request land-use plan procedural grounds Supreme Administrative Court administrative review autorizzazione in materia di protezione della natura zona cuscinetto oggetto della protezione della natura

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki 188 § 3 momentti (254/2017)
Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki 188 § 3 momentti (254/2017)
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 13 § 2 momentti
Hallintolainkäyttölaki 13 § 2 momentti
Generato dall'IA
kho-other_2016_4182
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal regarding municipal budget allocation to a business entity's board. The court upholds the lower court's decision based on the Municipal Code. The board had authority to allocate funds annually after the council approved the total investment. The court rejects claims of procedural errors and lack of voting thresholds. The decision clarifies the separation between investment approval and annual budgeting. The ruling emphasizes the legal distinction between preparatory acts and final decisions. The outcome confirms the validity of the board's financial planning authority. The case concludes that the appeal lacks sufficient grounds for reversal.
kho-other_2017_4800
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal permission requests due to lack of substantive grounds for review.
kho-other_2017_2263
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal against beach zoning plan approval based on general plan compatibility.
kho-other_2016_5549
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal against zoning plan violating equal treatment under Constitution and Planning Act.
kho-other_2017_3891
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeals against a town council's wind farm zoning plan approval. The court upholds the lower court's decision to reject the plaintiffs' challenges to the zoning plan. The court ruled that while specific construction restrictions were flawed, the overall zoning plan approval stands.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Asia

Asemakaavaa koskeva valituslupahakemus

Muutoksenhakijat

Pro Petäjäs ry ja sen asiakirjoista ilmenevät 48 asiakumppania

Päätös, jota valituslupahakemus koskee

Turun hallinto-oikeus 5.7.2017 nro 17/0213/1

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden ratkaisu

Valituslupahakemus hylätään. Korkein hallinto-oikeus ei siten anna ratkaisua valitukseen.

Sen perusteella, mitä muutoksenhakijat ovat esittäneet ja mitä asiakirjoista muutoin ilmenee, asian saattamiseen korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden ratkaistavaksi ei ole valitusluvan myöntämisen perustetta.

Sovelletut oikeusohjeet

Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki 188 § 3 momentti (254/2017)

Hallintolainkäyttölaki 13 § 2 momentti

Asian ovat ratkaisseet oikeusneuvokset Kari Kuusiniemi, Mika Seppälä ja Kari Tornikoski. Asian esittelijä Vesa Manninen.