• About us
    • About Lindahl
    • How we work
    • Said about Lindahl
    • Press
    • Find us
    • Privacy
  • Areas
    • Commercial dispute resolution
    • IT/Tech
    • Intellectual property
    • Life Sciences
    • M&A
    • All areas
  • Our people
    • Stockholm
    • Göteborg
    • Malmö
    • Uppsala
    • Helsingborg
    • Örebro
  • Latest news
    • Cases and transactions
    • News
    • Events
    • Knowledge
    • Portraits
  • Offices
    • Stockholm
    • Göteborg
    • Malmö
    • Uppsala
    • Örebro
    • Helsingborg

The Land and Environment Court of Appeal examines a question of jurisdiction in a dispute over water and drainage services

  • Home
  • Latest news
  • Knowledge
  • 2022
  • The Land and Environment Court of Appeal examines a question of jurisdiction in a dispute over water and drainage services

By means of a firm and final ruling issued on 6 May 2022 in Case no. M 3939–21, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal dismissed an action relating to adjustment of an installation fee for connection to the public water and drainage system. The action was dismissed because the property in question was located outside the municipal operational area for water and drainage services and the connection to the public water and drainage system was based on an agreement. That meant that the Land and Environment Court, in its capacity as a special court, did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute and the action should instead have been brought before a general court.


Background

Two property owners sued a municipal water and drainage company (the water and drainage principal) pursuant to section 31 of lagen om allmänna vattentjänster (“LAV”) [the Public Water Services Act] and requested adjustment of an installation fee charged for connection to the public water and drainage network The property was located outside the municipal operational area for public water services and connected to a municipal water and drainage system through an agreement between the property owners and the water and drainage principal.

The application for a summons was filed with the Land and Environment Court in Växjö. The water and drainage principal filed an objection contesting jurisdiction and requested that the application for a summons be dismissed because the Land and Environment Court was not the correct forum for the dispute. The objection contesting the jurisdiction was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court and the decision of the Land and Environment Court gained legal force. After the Land and Environment Court handed down its judgment, which means that the property owners’ action for adjustment was partially successful and the installation fee was adjusted, the water and drainage principal appealed the judgment and maintained its objection contesting the court’s jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT OF THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF APPEAL

In the reasons for its ruling, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal initially states that, in accordance with Chapter 10, section 19 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, a higher court must examine the question regarding jurisdiction. That means that, despite the Land and Environment Court’s assessment and firm and final decision not to dismiss the application for a summons, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal must carry out an independent assessment of the question regarding jurisdiction. When issuing the reasons set out below, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal issues the opposite assessment to the Land and Environment Court and finds that the application for a summons must be dismissed.

Initially, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal states that the Land and Environment Court has jurisdiction to hear cases and matters in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Code, the Real Property Formation Act, the Planning and Building Act and other laws. The Public Water Services Act states that the Land and Environment Court hears cases concerning matters governed in the Public Water Services Act and the regulations accompanying it.

The Land and Environment Court of Appeal further notes that the definition of “property owner” in section 2 of the Public Water Services Act does not include owners of a property located outside the operational area. Even though an agreement under section 5 of the Public Water Services Act can be entered into between the principal and a party other than the property owner, this, according to the Land and Environment Court of Appeal, is about usufructuaries of properties within the operational area or multiple property owners who, in association, act together against the principal. It would therefore be unreasonable, according to the court, if section 5 of the Public Water Services Act could enable the Act to be directly applicable to property owners outside the operational area.

In the reasons for its ruling, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal states that an additional important starting point for applying the obligations under the Public Water Services Act in circumstances relating to water and drainage is whether there is a need for an operational area where the municipality is required to both determine the operational area and arrange a water and drainage system within it, which means that property owners will be required to pay fees for the water and drainage installation under certain conditions. The property must be located within the operational area as a prerequisite for both the right to use a public water and drainage system and the requirement to pay a fee. Otherwise, the relationship between the principal and the property owner who connects to the public water and drainage system is based on voluntariness, i.e. a civil law agreement between the parties. Therefore, according to the Land and Environment Court of Appeal, the property owners cannot cite the obligations under the Public Water Services Act in support of their action in a water and drainage relationship when that relationship is based on civil law.

Finally, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal notes that it has also not emerged that the municipality intended, or had any obligation, to extend the operational area to include the property with which the case is concerned.

To sum up, the municipality was therefore not considered to have any obligation to connect the property in question and the connection was therefore voluntary and based entirely on the agreement between the parties. That means that the Land and Environment Court therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the case and the Land and Environment Court of Appeal therefore set aside the judgment and dismissed the property owners’ action. 

 

Comments


According to previous case law, it was sufficient for a property to be located in an area where public water services would be arranged or had largely already been arranged in order for the property to be considered to be located within the operational area. Decisions on the establishment of an operational area are only a formality in such cases. The Land and Environment Court of Appeal’s reasons for the ruling to set aside could form a basis for arguing that this still applies since the reasons for the ruling expressly state that the municipality in question did not intend to extend the operational area to include the property in question. The municipality’s intention to establish an operational area can therefore still be decisive for an assessment of whether a water and drainage dispute should be heard by the Land and Environment Court or a general court.

To sum up, the Land and Environment Court’s final ruling provides an expected but important clarification of the Land and Environment Courts’ jurisdiction to hear and examine cases for water and drainage customers outside the operational area who are connected on the basis of an agreement.

 

Do you want to know more or did the article give rise to other questions? You are very welcome to contact any of us or your regular contact person at Lindahl.

 

Environment

Lindahl is a leading firm in the field of environmental law offering lawyers who have vast experience of advising private and public clients in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, industry and research infrastructure. Many of our lawyers have worked at courts and environmental authorities or have professional experience from other European countries.

Visit page

Related

  • 5/4/2022 3:23:05 PM New ruling on damages for environmental damage
  • 4/13/2022 2:30:07 PM A new proposal for differentiation of shore protection is halted
  • 4/12/2022 2:02:00 PM New ruling on indirect protection of tenure for tenants of non-residential premises in the area of property law
  • 3/21/2022 11:29:53 AM A change to the Ordinance makes local energy sharing possible
  • 3/14/2022 3:31:28 PM One step closer to due diligence requirements in regard to sustainability
  • 3/15/2022 3:31:13 PM Environmental liability in connection with transfer of assets – new decision from the Land and Environment Court of Appeal
  • 2/15/2022 3:30:29 PM News in climate adaptation
  • 2/15/2022 2:55:18 PM A restaurant receives environmental damages due to disturbances from the redevelopment of Slussen

Contact

  • Johanna Lindqvist

    Göteborg

    johanna.lindqvist@lindahl.se +46 731 472 781
  • Philip Ahl

    Göteborg

    philip.ahl@lindahl.se +46 731 472 711
  • Victor Carlsson

    Göteborg

    victor.carlsson@lindahl.se +46 731 472 788
Pages
  • Start
  • About us
  • Areas
  • Our people
  • Latest news
  • Privacy
Our offices
  • Stockholm reception.stockholm@lindahl.se +46 8 527 70 800
  • Göteborg reception.goteborg@lindahl.se +46 31 799 10 00
  • Malmö reception.malmo@lindahl.se +46 40 664 66 50
  • Uppsala reception.uppsala@lindahl.se +46 18 16 18 50
  • Örebro reception.orebro@lindahl.se +46 19 20 89 00
  • Helsingborg reception.helsingborg@lindahl.se +46 42 17 53 00
Social media
  • Connect with us on social networks: Instagram, Linkedin, Youtube, Facebook,

Disclaimer

The material and information on this site is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Please note that all images on Lindahl's website, www.lindahl.se, are subject to intellectual property protection and downloading, publication, copying and/or other use of the images requires the written consent of the rights holder. You'll find Advokatfirman Lindahl KB's general terms and conditions here.

Some cookies are essential, others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is used. For more information, please visit our Cookie Policy.

Essential Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the functionality of the site and cannot be disabled.

Analytics Cookies>

We use Analytics cookies to collect information that gives us insight into how our website is being used. We anonymize IP addresses in Google Analytics. By clicking on Decline we won't save theese cookies.

Decline
We use cookies to get insights on how our site is used and give our visitors the best possible experience