HFD:2006:59 Pays/Territoire Finlande Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Aoû 28, 2006 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen Siège de la cour Helsinki Numéro de référence HFD:2006:59 Langue Finnois Sujet Eau Résumé The case concerned a permit for building a bridge with associated constructions in a strait. Chapter 2 of the Water Act stipulates that a permit is needed for this. A central issue in the case was the question of whether a nearby property owner was entitled to compensation as a result of the construction. In the case where the owner of a property, after a comprehensive assessment, has a special legal status protecting him or her against changes in the landscape he or she may have the right to compensation for activities granted a permit in an area outside of the property, causing only scenic damage in accordance with chapter 11 section 3 of the Water Act. If the owner does not have such a special legal status there is no general right to compensation. A few different factors should be taken into account when assessing the above. These include the distance from the change in the landscape to the property, the use of the area in question, other factors affecting the landscape, the local master plan if one exists for the area, and other possibilities for a change in the use of the land. In the assessment the strength, immediacy and unexpected character of the change of the landscape should also be considered. The Supreme Administrative Court came to the conclusion that, even though the view from the property would be affected, the property owner in this case did not have such a special legal status that compensation would be paid. Texte intégral HFD-2006-59.pdf