Finnish
The case concerned the interpretation of section 10 of the Forest Act regarding the preservation of diversity and habitats of special importance. Paragraph 2 of the provision establishes which habitats are of special importance for forest diversity and paragraph 3 stipulates that the management and utilisation measures concerning these areas must be carried out in a manner which preserves the special features of the habitats if they are (1) in a natural state or resembling a natural state and (2) are clearly distinguishable from their surroundings.
The court stated that the distinguishability concerns the object itself and that it must not actually be distinguishable in the terrain. The court also was of the opinion that the Forest Centre could give its advance ruling on a forest use declaration without being bound to the delimitation of the object in the same way as in the application. The Forest Centre was in the case of the opinion that the object was larger than the applicant meant. Because this opinion was not binding, the applicant could not appeal the opinion. Neither was the conditions for forest use that the Forest Centre gave, binding upon the applicant as the Forest Centre acted beyond its competence. Consequently, the applicant had no right to appeal.