Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
HFD:2004:24 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal regarding unmarked hiking trails on a legally binding general plan.

Numero d'incarto HFD:2004:24
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 dismissed the applicant's appeal against a decision to reject a general plan amendment. The applicant argued that unmarked hiking trails on the legally binding plan violated the Recreation Law's requirements for trail planning. The court held that while the trails were marked, the lack of specific directional signs did not automatically render the plan invalid under the relevant statutes.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Recreation Law s. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 15; Planning and Building Act s. 9, 40; Municipalities Act s. 90: A legally binding general plan remains valid even if recreational trail markings lack explicit directional guidance, provided they meet the substantive planning requirements of the Recreation Law.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
legally binding general plan recreation law requirements hiking trail markings administrative appeal dismissal planning and building act perfezionamento passivo inesigibilità dell'esecuzione dell'allontanamento misura meno grave

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Recreation Law s. 1 para. 1 and 2
Ulkoilulaki 1 § 1 ja 2 mom., 2 § 1 mom., 3 §, 4 § 1 mom., 5 § 1 mom., 7 § 1 ja 2 mom., 13 § ja 15 §
Recreation Law s. 2 para. 1
Recreation Law s. 3
Recreation Law s. 4 para. 1
Recreation Law s. 5 para. 1
Recreation Law s. 7 para. 1 and 2
Recreation Law s. 13
Recreation Law s. 15
Planning and Building Act s. 9
Planning and Building Act s. 40
Municipalities Act s. 90
Generato dall'IA
kho-precedent_2008_17
Court allows trail route through property if minimal harm is caused compared to necessity.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2023:87
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal, overturning lower court dismissal of mining plan approval due to insufficient water impact analysis.
admin_2019_eastern-finland__315
Administrative court dismissed appeal against cat owner's restriction on outdoor movement under animal welfare law.
market_2022_H390
Market Court dismissed appeal against regulator's ban on outsourcing railway platform tasks to a railway company.
kho-precedent_2004_84
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal; zoning plan invalid due to lack of soil investigation under Planning and Building Act.

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

Oikeusvaikutteisen yleiskaavan kaavakartalle oli merkitty ulkoilureitistö. Ulkoilureittimerkintöjä ei ollut osoitettu ohjeellisina. Merkintöjen tuli ulkoilulain 13 § huomioon ottaen täyttää myös ulkoilulaissa ulkoilureittisuunnitelmalle asetetut vaatimukset.

Ulkoilulaki 1 § 1 ja 2 mom., 2 § 1 mom., 3 §, 4 § 1 mom., 5 § 1 mom., 7 § 1 ja 2 mom., 13 § ja 15 §

Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki 9 § ja 40 §

Kuntalaki 90 §

Kort referat på svenska

---

[SV]

På plankartan till en generalplan med rättsverkningar fanns friluftsleder markerade. Anteckningarna över friluftslederna var inte angivna som riktgivande. Med beaktande av 13 § i lagen om friluftsliv skulle anteckningarna också uppfylla de krav som ställs på planer för friluftsleder i lagen om friluftsliv.