AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 22025/93

                      by Arto KETO-TOKOI and Others

                      against Finland

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

3 March 1997, the following members being present:

           Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H. DANELIUS

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 A. PERENIC

                 P. LORENZEN

                 K. HERNDL

                 E. BIELIUNAS

                 E.A. ALKEMA

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           Mrs.  M. HION

           Mr.   R. NICOLINI

           Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 26 May 1993 by

Arto KETO-TOKOI and Others against Finland and registered on 9 June

1993 under file No. 22025/93;

      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having regard to :

-     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

      the Commission;

-     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

      15 January 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the

      applicants on 15 March 1996 and 17 February 1997;

-     the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 3 March 1997;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The names and particulars of the applicants are set out in the

Annex. They are represented by Ms. Pirjo-Riitta Oinaala, lawyer of the

Finnish Association for Nature Conservation ("Suomen luonnon-

suojeluliitto r.y. - Finlands naturskyddsförbund r.f.") and Mr Juhani

Kortteinen, a legal researcher at the University of Helsinki.

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

      The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

      The applicants are owners of properties in the municipality of

Pelkosenniemi near the river Vuotos in the County of Lapland in

northern Finland.

      After an informal meeting on 15 September 1982 the Government

made known that an artificial lake and related facilities such as a

hydro-electric power station should not be constructed in the Vuotos

area. Plans for such a lake had been under discussion since the 1960's.

      It appears that in 1986 the Ministry for Trade and Industry again

began to plan the lake. In the summer of 1991 the limited liability

company Kemijoki Oy began an extensive survey of the Vuotos area. The

company's purpose is to own and manage hydro-electric power stations

and lines and to produce electricity for its shareholders. The Finnish

State owns roughly 78 per cent of the shares.

      The surveying entailed, among other measures, the felling of

trees with a view to creating three 70-126 metres long and 2 metres

wide openings in the forest on the applicants' properties. Three such

openings were created on each property. Excavation took place with the

help of explosives. The surveyed area measured some 18 kilometres in

length. The surveying affected between 0.011 and 0.019 hectares of the

applicants' respective properties.

      The main part of the surveyed area belonged to Kemijoki Oy

itself. As for the remainder, the company tried to obtain the property

owners' consent to the surveying. According to the Government, the

applicants expressed such consent and an agreement was reached

concerning the compensation to be paid to them. According to the

applicants, they never consented to the measures taken on their

properties.

      On 2 September 1991 the Ministry for Trade and Industry (kauppa-

ja teollisuusministeriö, handels- och industriministeriet) found that

the Vuotos area did not contain any mineral resources of such an amount

as to render their exploitation profitable. This finding was apparently

based on surveying carried out in the late 1980's.

      In a notification published in the regional daily "Koillis-Lappi"

on 13 September 1991 Kemijoki Oy stated that it would commence

"supplementary" geological surveying on 16 September 1991.

      On 30 October 1991 Kemijoki Oy requested permission to conduct

a survey of the Vuotos area in order to determine the layout of the

artificial lake and the location of a pump station and power lines. The

request apparently concerned some 240 km² intended to be submerged in

the lake. A permit was granted by the County Administrative Board

(lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) of Lapland on 11 November 1991 in

pursuance of the 1977 Act on Compulsory Acquisition of Real Property

and Particular Rights (laki kiinteän omaisuuden ja erityisten

oikeuksien lunastuksesta, lag om inlösen av fast egendom och särskilda

rättigheter 603/1977; "the 1977 Act"). The survey was to be concluded

by the end of 1993 and was to be conducted without causing unnecessary

damage and harm. Any damage or harm was to be repaired or compensated.

Provided their addresses were known the company was ordered to notify

all property owners (and holders of any related right) individually of

the surveying at least seven days before commencing it. Otherwise the

notification was to be of a general character, which normally entails

that it is posted on the municipal notice board. No property owner or

holder of a related right was heard by the County Administrative Board.

      In 1991 the applicants received the following sums from the

company in compensation for damage resulting from the survey of their

properties preceding the County Administrative Board's decision:

      Mr Keto-Tokoi:             15.000,00 FIM

      Mr and Mrs Poikela:         4.000,50 FIM

      Ms Tannervo:                5.000,00 FIM

      Ms Vesanen:                 3.030,00 FIM

      According to the applicants, these payments were based on an

agreement according to which the company undertook not to carry out any

further surveying of their properties.

      On 7 January 1992 the company, relying on section 7 of the 1965

Mining Act (kaivoslaki, gruvlag 503/1965), reserved the right to lodge

mining claims concerning minerals potentially to be exploited in the

area affected by the permit issued on 11 November 1991.

      In a notification published in "Koillis-Lappi" on 25 March 1992

the company, referring to the permission granted on 11 November 1991,

stated its intention to "commence" the survey. According to the

applicants, they did not at that time receive knowledge of the intended

surveying.

      On 13 May 1992 the State Institute for Economic Research (Valtion

taloudellinen tutkimuskeskus, Statens ekonomiska forskningsanstalt)

published a survey of the financial implications of the lake project.

The survey had been ordered by the Government and concluded, in

essence, that the project would not be profitable.

      On 17 June 1992 the Government, sitting in its capacity as

Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet), instructed the State

representatives at Kemijoki Oy's shareholders' meeting not to object

to an intended request for permission to construct an artificial lake

and a power station in the Vuotos area. The State representatives were

also instructed to permit the company to take any other measures deemed

necessary for the realisation of the project.

      The construction of the artificial lake and related facilities

requires permission by the Water Court of Northern Finland (Pohjois-

Suomen vesioikeus, Norra Finlands vattendomstol) in pursuance of the

1961 Water Act (vesilaki, vattenlag 264/1961). Such a permit was

requested by Kemijoki Oy on 25 September 1992 and the proceedings are

still pending. An appeal lies with the Water Court of Appeal

(vesiylioikeus, vattenöverdomstolen) following which the Supreme

Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltnings-

domstolen) may grant leave to appeal.

      In the proceedings before the Water Court the company has also

requested permission to take various preparatory measures (such as

extraction with a view to creating dams). Permission may be granted

only if and when the actual construction permit is issued and would

enable partial commencement of the lake project before such a permit

might acquire legal force (chapter 2, section 26 of the Water Act).

      On 3 December 1992 Ms Tannervo acknowledged receipt of a

notification by Kemijoki Oy as follows:

      (translation from Finnish)

      "Kemijoki Oy

      RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATION

      I have received a notification delivered by representatives

      of Kemijoki Oy concerning (the) surveying to be carried out

      in the area of the planned artificial lake of Vuotos.

      ..."

      The receipt was countersigned by a representative of Kemijoki Oy.

According to the Government, all applicants received, on 3 or

4 December 1992, "a personal and reasonable notice" of the County

Administrative Board's decision of 11 November 1991 with a notice of

appeal annexed thereto.

      The applicants, however, state that in December 1992 Mr Keto-

Tokoi, Ms Tannervo and Ms Vesanen received only informal knowledge of

the Board's decision, while Mr and Mrs Poikela were informed thereof

in January 1993. Having allegedly been misled by the terms of the

document notified to her on 3 December 1992, Ms Tannervo signed it,

although it did not correspond to a formal notification pursuant to

domestic law. Most likely it contained neither the permit itself nor

a formal notice of appeal.

      On 7 January 1993 the company requested the Ministry for Trade

and Industry to grant it five claims (valtaus, inmutning) concerning

minerals potentially to be exploited in certain areas within the

municipalities of Pelkosenniemi and Savukoski, including the

applicants' properties. The surface claimed totalled some 4,5 km².

      On 5 February 1993 the applicants lodged a complaint with the

police concerning the measures taken on their properties by Kemijoki

Oy. On 11 February 1993 they requested the Supreme Administrative Court

to stay enforcement of and annul (purkaa, återbryta) the County

Administrative Board's decision of 11 November 1991. They essentially

argued that they had neither been heard by the Board nor properly

notified of the intended surveying. Given that they had not been

formally notified of the Board's decision, they had been unable to

lodge an ordinary appeal. They also argued that the Board's decision

had been based on a manifestly wrong application of domestic law. The

1982 Act on Administrative Procedure (hallintomenettelylaki, lag

598/1982 om förvaltningsförfarande) had warranted the hearing of the

applicants and the essence of the matter should rather have been

examined by the Water Court in pursuance of the Water Act.

      By decisions of 14 April 1993 the Ministry for Trade and Industry

granted the mining claims requested by the company. The claims

authorise it to take various geological surveying measures with a view

to verifying the extent of any mineral findings.

      The applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court,

arguing, in essence, that the claims concerned mainly those parts of

the Vuotos area upon which the company intended to construct the

artificial lake and related facilities. In addition, the company's

statutes did not permit it to prospect and make use of mineral

findings. The claims allegedly enabled the company to circumvent the

requirements of the Water Act, according to which even preparatory

measures with a view to establishing an artificial lake required

permission by the competent water court. The applicants finally

recalled the previous geological survey which had shown that the area

contained an insufficient amount of minerals for any exploitation to

be profitable. The company was therefore not in need of the mining

claims.

      In a newspaper interview published on 23 April 1993 a

representative of Kemijoki Oy stated that the company did not expect

any significant mineral findings in the Vuotos area. It had

nevertheless requested mining claims in the light of certain

indications of valuable minerals. The representative furthermore

acknowledged that the company might not be able to start exploiting

possible findings in its own name.

      On 24 November 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the

applicants' annulment request of 11 February 1993 after an examination

of its merits. It considered that the County Administrative Board had

been competent to grant the surveying permit pursuant to the 1977 Act.

Such a permit concerned merely preparatory measures. The 1977 Act

required that a property owner be notified of the commencement of the

survey. It also stipulated how any damage caused by a survey should be

compensated. In these circumstances the granting of the permit had not

presupposed the hearing of parties within the meaning of the 1982 Act

on Administrative Procedure (such as the applicants). No procedural

error of sufficient significance had therefore been made. Nor did the

Supreme Administrative Court find any other grounds for annulling the

County Administrative Board's decision.

      In response to the applicants' complaint of 5 February 1993 the

Public Prosecutor of Pelkosenniemi, on 17 February 1994, found that

Kemijoki Oy had, in the autumn of 1991 and in December 1992,

accidentally surveyed Ms Vesanen's and Mr Keto-Tokoi's properties. The

survey had entailed, inter alia, felling of trees and the use of

explosives. In the police investigation a company representative had

stated that, on 3 December 1992, all applicants had been formally

notified of the permission granted on 11 November 1991 but had refused

to acknowledge receipt thereof in writing. The Prosecutor decided not

to press charges, considering that no criminal offence had been

committed.

      In 1994 the applicants received the following compensation from

the company for the damage resulting from the survey of their

properties after the County Administrative Board's decision of

11 November 1991:

      Mr Keto-Tokoi:               615,40 FIM

      Mr and Mrs Poikela:        1.329,00 FIM

      Ms Tannervo:               1.104,00 FIM

      Ms Vesanen:                1.774,00 FIM

      Part of the compensation was later returned to the company which

then deposited it on the County Administrative Board's account in

accordance with domestic law.

      On 30 August 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the

applicants' appeal against the Ministry's decisions of 14 April 1993.

The Court noted that the 1965 Mining Act exhaustively enumerated the

impediments to granting claims. Since no such impediment had been shown

to exist, the Ministry had been under an obligation to grant the

claims.

      In an agreement with the company dated 3 July 1995 Mr and

Mrs Poikela declared having received 4.000 and 1.329 FIM in

compensation for all damage caused by the surveying of their property.

They also renounced any further claim in respect of the surveying

related to the lake project and were afforded a right to collect fallen

trees from certain parts of the company's property.

      According to the Government, Kemijoki Oy has paid the applicants

annual compensation pursuant to the Mining Act for the existence of the

mining claims. Part of the money has been deposited on the County

Administrative Board's account following certain applicants' refusal

to accept the payments.

      According to the applicants, they have not received any

compensation for "the mining".

B.    Relevant domestic law and practice

      Before proceedings are instituted for the purpose of requesting

a right of compulsory acquisition of real property a permission to

carry out a geological survey of the property in question may be

requested. A successful applicant shall notify every property owner and

holder of a right of usufruct individually of the commencement of the

survey, if their addresses are known. Otherwise a public notice will

suffice. Notification shall take place at the latest seven days before

the commencement of the survey. The surveying permission must be

presented on request (sections 84-85 of the 1977 Act).

      As in force at the relevant time the 1977 Act contained no

provision requiring that the property owners and others affected by the

requested surveying should be heard in advance and/or be notified of

the County Administrative Board's decision to grant permission to this

effect. According to the 1982 Act on Administrative Procedure, a party

within the meaning of that Act shall be given an opportunity to be

heard in regard to submissions by others provided this material could

influence the outcome of the matter. If, for instance, previously

enacted legislation contains provisions which deviate from those in the

1982 Act, that legislation shall be applied (sections 2 and 15).

      As from 1 September 1996 the 1977 Act stipulates that only

absolutely necessary measures shall be taken on the basis of a

surveying permission. If necessary, the County Administrative Board

shall set out in detail the permitted measures as well as any

restrictions. In certain cases a property owner or a holder of a

related right shall now be notified both of a request for permission

and of a decision to grant one (section 84, as amended by Act no.

476/96).

      According to the 1977 Act, as in force prior to 1 September 1996,

compensation for damage caused by the surveying of a property was, if

no settlement had been reached, to be requested in court proceedings

instituted within a year from the expiry of the surveying permit. If

the compulsory acquisition of a surveyed property had been permitted,

compensation for the surveying was to be claimed in the proceedings

pertaining to the actual acquisition (section 86, subsection 3 of the

1977 Act). As from 1 September 1996 requests for compensation shall no

longer be examined by civil courts but by an ad hoc commission (section

86, as amended by Act no. 476/96).

      According to the 1950 Act on the Right of Appeal in

Administrative Matters (laki muutoksenhausta hallintoasioissa, lag om

ändringssökande i förvaltningsärenden 154/1950), an appeal could be

lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court against a decision of, for

instance, a County Administrative Board provided the right of appeal

has not been removed or restricted by law. An appeal was to be lodged

within thirty days from the day when the appellant was notified of the

decision at issue (sections 2, 4 and 8). In its decision No. 1970 II

116 the Supreme Administrative Court considered that this period began

only on the day when the appeal was lodged, since the appellant had not

been formally notified of the appealed decision.

      According to the 1966 Act on Extraordinary Remedies against

Administrative Decisions (laki ylimääräisestä muutoksenhausta

hallintoasioissa, lag om extraordinärt ändringssökande i

förvaltningsärenden 200/1966), annulment of an administrative decision

which had acquired legal force could be requested with reference to,

inter alia, an alleged procedural error which might have had a

significant influence on the decision (section 2). Annulment could not

take place unless the decision at issue violated the right of an

individual or an annulment was in the public interest. An annulment

request could not be examined, if certain other remedies mentioned in

the Act were still available (section 6). In its decision No. 1979 II

628 the Supreme Administrative Court declined to examine a request for

annulment, since the time-limit for lodging an ordinary appeal had not

yet expired.

      The 1950 Act and the 1966 Act have been repealed by the 1996

Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (hallintolainkäyttölaki,

förvaltningsprocesslag 586/1996) which entered into force on 1 December

1996.      If a request for a mining claim meets the requirements set out

in sections 8 and 10 of the Mining Act and provided it is not to be

rejected on any of the grounds enumerated in section 6, the claim shall

be granted. The right to seek such a claim may be reserved for one year

(section 7). A claim entitles the holder to carry out geological

surveys and test exploitation (sections 4 and 12). The holder of the

claim shall pay the affected property owners compensation (fixed by

Decree) either per annum or more frequently. Any damage or harm caused

to the property owner by measures taken on the basis of a mining claim

must be fully compensated (section 15). Further compensation shall be

paid to the property owner both for a right of extraction and the

actual extraction of minerals (sections 44-45). Should payment of any

such  compensation not occur, the property owner may request that the

mining claim or right of extraction be forfeited (section 64).

Compensation for any unforeseen damage or harm caused by actual

extraction may be claimed in civil proceedings (section 46).

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicants complain that they were denied a fair hearing in

the proceedings resulting in the granting of the surveying permit to

Kemijoki Oy. Although their addresses were known, they were neither

heard in respect of the company's request nor properly notified of the

County Administrative Board's decision. The non-hearing of the

applicants allegedly also discriminated against them. They invoke

Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention.

2.    The applicants also complain that the measures which the company

has taken on their properties have violated their right to the peaceful

enjoyment of their possessions. These activities commenced already

before the surveying permit had been granted. The Board's decision to

grant such a permit did not pursue any general interest, since the

Government's own investigations had already shown that the artificial

lake project would not be profitable. The mining claims granted to the

company concern land which it envisages to submerge rather than use for

mining purposes. These claims therefore restrict the applicants'

property rights for purposes not allowed by the Convention. The

measures taken by the company have been disproportionate to any general

interest pursued, since they have limited the applicants' possibility

of pursuing agricultural and forestry activities. The company is in

effect pursuing its aim to construct the artificial lake and related

facilities, although no permit to this effect has been granted so far.

The conduct of the authorities seen as a whole has been and continues

to be aimed at depriving the applicants of their right peacefully to

enjoy their possessions.

      The applicants furthermore complain that the surveying and

related measures have also violated their right to respect for their

private life and homes. Notably, the possibility that their properties

may be submerged in the lake has caused them mental distress.

      The applicants also complain that they have had no effective

remedy at their disposal against the above-mentioned violations.

      The applicants invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as well as

Articles 8, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 26 May 1993 and registered on

9 June 1993.

      On 18 October 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

      The Government's written observations were submitted on

15 January 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose. The applicants replied on 15 March 1996, also after an

extension of the time-limit.

      On 5 March 1996 the Commission granted the applicants legal aid.

      On 15 October 1996 the plenary Commission ordered the transfer

of the application to itself. On 24 October 1996 it decided to hold a

hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.

      In February 1997 the Commission was informed that the applicant

Tauno Poikela had died and that his widow, Mrs. Helmi Poikela, wished

to take over the application on his behalf.

      The Commission's hearing was held on 3 March 1997, the parties

being represented as follows:The Government

Mr Holger Rotkirch          Director-General for Legal Affairs,

                            Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Legal

                            Department, Agent

Mr Arto Kosonen             Head of Unit, Ministry for Foreign

                            Affairs, Legal Department, Co-Agent

Mr Erkki Kourula            Deputy Director-General for Legal Affairs,

                            Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Adviser

Mr Seppo Oikarinen          Chief Inspector, Ministry of Trade and

                            Industry, Adviser

Mrs Eija Siitari-Vanne      Legislative Counsellor, Ministry of

                            Justice, Adviser

The applicants

Ms. Pirjo-Riitta Oinaala    Lawyer of the Finnish Association for

                            Nature Conservation ("Suomen luonnon-

                            suojeluliitto r.y. - Finlands naturskydds-

                            förbund r.f.")

Mr Juhani Kortteinen        LL.M., Researcher, University of Helsinki,

                            Faculty of Law

THE LAW

1.    The Commission first notes that the applicant Tauno Poikela has

died in the course of the Commission proceedings and that his widow,

the applicant Helmi Poikela, has indicated that she wishes to pursue

the application also on his behalf.

      Close relatives of a deceased applicant are in principle entitled

to take his or her place in the proceedings before the Convention

organs (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Scherer v. Switzerland judgment of

25 March 1994, Series A no. 287, pp. 14-15, paras. 31-32 with further

references). In the circumstances of the present case the Commission

therefore accepts that Mrs. Poikela may pursue the application as

regards Mr Poikela.

2.    The applicants complain that they were denied a fair hearing in

the proceedings resulting in the granting of the surveying permit to

Kemijoki Oy. Although their addresses were known, they were neither

heard in respect of the company's request nor properly notified of the

County Administrative Board's decision. The non-hearing of the

applicants allegedly also discriminated against them. They invoke

Articles 6 and 14 (Art. 6, 14) of the Convention.

      Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention reads, in so far as

relevant, as follows:

      "1.  In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone

      is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an

      independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ..."

      Article 14 (Art. 14) reads as follows:

      "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this

      Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any

      ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion,

      political or other opinion, national or social origin,

      association with a national minority, property, birth or

      other status."

      The Government essentially submit that the applicants have failed

to exhaust domestic remedies, since they have not lodged an ordinary

appeal against the County Administrative Board's decision of

11 November 1991. Their unequivocal request for an annulment of that

decision indicates that they accepted that the time-limit for lodging

an ordinary appeal had expired. Given that the Supreme Administrative

Court accepted that the applicants had standing to lodge the annulment

request, it would also have examined an ordinary appeal lodged by them.

Such an appeal might also have been given suspensive effect. The

applicants could still lodge an ordinary appeal, arguing that for want

of formal notification of the Board's decision it is not belated.

      In the alternative, the Government consider the complaint to be

manifestly ill-founded. Nothing would have prevented the applicants

from consulting the courts' case file and lodging an ordinary appeal

with the Supreme Administrative Court so as to obtain an examination

of all arguments. Such an examination would have met the requirements

of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. The applicants were

not discriminated against, since no property owner was individually

notified of the company's request to the County Administrative Board.

      The applicants submit that, since none of them were formally

notified of the County Administrative Board's decision, they were

unable to lodge an ordinary appeal against it. The fact that the

Supreme Administrative Court examined their annulment request precisely

as such an extraordinary remedy shows that in its view there was no

longer any ordinary remedy available to them. At any rate, the

effectiveness of an ordinary appeal could be questioned, given that

part of the surveying had already been carried out at the time when

that remedy could have been tried.

(i)   In the Commission's view the question principally arising in the

context of this complaint is whether the applicants have had access to

a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention for the purpose of challenging the County Administrative

Board's decision to issue Kemijoki Oy with a surveying permit.

      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does not oblige the Contracting

States to submit disputes over civil rights to a procedure which at

each stage meets the requirements of that provision, provided it

eventually may be determined by a body which does (cf., e.g., Eur.

Court HR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of

23 June 1984, Series A no. 43, pp. 22-23, para. 51). It is sufficient

that, in the determination of "civil rights and obligations", decisions

taken by administrative authorities which do not themselves satisfy the

requirements of that provision be subject to subsequent control by an

independent judicial body with sufficient jurisdiction and which itself

provides the safeguards required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (see,

e.g., Eur. Court HR, Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995,

Series A no. 312, p. 17, para. 28).

       The Commission notes that, on 11 February 1993, the applicants

requested the Supreme Administrative Court to annul the County

Administrative Board's decision of 11 November 1991. It is thus clear

that they had become aware of that decision at the latest in February

1993, whatever the exact date and manner of the communication thereof.

In spite of this the applicants have never lodged an ordinary appeal

with the Supreme Administrative Court with reference to the alleged

failure by Kemijoki Oy formally to notify them of the Board's decision.

However, in the absence of such a notification an ordinary appeal would

not, according to the Supreme Administrative Court's practice, be

belated. There is no indication that the Supreme Administrative Court's

examination of an ordinary appeal would have failed to meet the

requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      In these circumstances the Commission does not find that the

applicants have been denied access to a tribunal within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention for the purposes of

challenging the County Administrative Board's decision. Accordingly,

there is no indication of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) in this

particular case.

(ii)  In the light of the foregoing the Commission does not find any

indication of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in

conjunction with Article 6 (Art. 14+6).

      It follows that the whole of this complaint must be rejected as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.    The applicants also complain that the measures which Kemijoki Oy

has taken on their properties have violated their right to the peaceful

enjoyment of their possessions. The interference with their property

rights has been excessive and is in effect pursuing the company's aim

to construct the artificial lake and related facilities, although no

permit to this effect has been granted so far. The mining claims

granted to the company have restricted their rights for purposes not

allowed by the Convention. The conduct of the authorities seen as a

whole has been and continues to be aimed at completely depriving the

applicants of their right peacefully to enjoy their possessions. The

measures have also violated the applicants' right to respect for their

private life and homes. Finally, the applicants have not had any

effective remedy at their disposal against the above-mentioned

violations. The applicants invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

as well as Articles 8, 13, 17 and 18 (Art. 8, 13, 17, 18) of the

Convention.

      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) reads as follows:

      "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

      enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of

      his possessions except in the public interest and subject

      to the conditions provided for by law and by the general

      principles of international law.

      The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way

      impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it

      deems necessary to control the use of property in

      accordance with the general interest or to secure the

      payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

      Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention reads, insofar as relevant,

as follows:

      "1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private ...

      life, his home ...

      2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority

      with the exercise of this right except such as is in

      accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic

      society in the interests of national security, public

      safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the

      prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of

      health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

      freedoms of others."

      Article 13 (Art. 13) reads as follows:

      "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

      Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy

      before a national authority notwithstanding that the

      violation has been committed by persons acting in an

      official capacity."

      Article 17 (Art. 17) reads as follows:

      "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying

      for any State, group or person any right to engage in any

      activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any

      of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their

      limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the

      Convention."

      Article 18 (Art. 18) reads as follows:

      "The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the

      said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any

      purpose other than those for which they have been

      prescribed."

      The Government submit that, since the State's ownership of

Kemijoki Oy is not coupled with any specific Government control, the

respondent State cannot be held directly responsible for Kemijoki Oy's

acts. At the very least the State cannot assume responsibility for

measures which have not been sanctioned by the authorities by virtue

of permits.

      The Government furthermore submit that the applicants cannot

claim to be "victims" within the meaning of Article 25 para. 1

(Art. 25-1) of the Convention of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol

No. 1 (P1-1), considering that they have been fully compensated for the

damage and inconvenience caused by the surveying of their properties.

Kemijoki Oy has also been paying them annual compensation for its

mining claims. Whenever the applicants have refused to accept the

company's payments, the money has been deposited pursuant to domestic

law.

      Alternatively, the Government argue that the applicants have not

exhausted domestic remedies, since they failed to seize an ordinary

court with a claim pursuant to section 86, subsection 3 of the 1977 Act

for further compensation for the surveying. They also failed to

complain to the County Prosecutor against the local prosecutor's

decision not to bring charges for the surveying preceding the permit

granted in 1991. The applicants themselves could also have brought

criminal proceedings against those responsible for that surveying.

Finally, the applicants could have sought to have the company's mining

claims forfeited.

      As for the surveying in 1991, the Government furthermore submit

that the complaint has been lodged belatedly, given that this activity

ended more than six months before the complaint was introduced.

      In the further alternative, the Government consider the complaint

to be manifestly ill-founded. The interference with the applicants'

property rights resulting from the surveying permit and the mining

claims granted to the company was clearly based on domestic law.

Although opinions may vary as to the profitability of the lake project,

the measures taken have pursued a general interest within the meaning

of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). The

surveying permission was in force for about a year only. No measures

have yet been taken on the applicants' properties on the basis of the

mining claims. With these claims the company is securing its right to

extract any valuable minerals which might be discovered in connection

with the possible construction of the hydro-electric power station. The

applicants' right to make use of their properties has not been hampered

and the value of the properties has not been affected. The applicants

have thus not been made to carry an individual and excessive burden and

a fair balance has been struck between the conflicting general and

individual interests. As for the procedural guarantee inherent in

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), the Government consider that the

domestic proceedings have afforded the applicants a reasonable

opportunity to put their case to the relevant authorities.

      Insofar as the applicants invoke Articles 8, 13, 17 and 18

(Art. 8, 13, 17, 18) of the Convention, the Government consider that

the complaint has remained unsubstantiated. In any case, no separate

issue arises under Article 8 or 13 (Art. 8, 13).

      The applicants contend that the measures taken by Kemijoki Oy are

imputable to the respondent State, as the company is in effect managed

by the State. As regards their status as "victims" within the meaning

of Article 25 (Art. 25), they stress that the 1991 compensation was

accepted on condition that the company would no longer conduct surveys

of their properties. The compensation does not correspond to the normal

level and could not afford them sufficient redress. The final agreement

signed by Mr and Mrs Poikela concerns merely the damage resulting from

the surveying and does not affect their status as "victims" in any

other respect.

      At the Commission's hearing the applicants accepted that the

company's activities on their properties have not exceeded the terms

of either the surveying permit or the mining claims. They also conceded

that the measures so far taken on their properties could scarcely be

said to have hampered their use of their properties for their

livelihood. They contended, however, that on the basis of the mining

claims Kemijoki Oy may take extensive measures on their properties at

any time in the future. The mining claims thus constitute a de jure

limitation of the applicants' property rights which renders their

ownership precarious.

      As regards Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention, the applicants

consider that the company's failure to begin any prospecting for

minerals on their property shows that the mining claims are aimed

solely at enabling it to prepare the foundations of the artificial lake

before any permit to that effect has been granted under the Water Act.

      For the reasons below, the Commission does not find it necessary

to determine either the extent of the respondent State's responsibility

for the acts complained of or the respective applicants' status as

"victims" within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.

Nor is it necessary to determine, for the purposes of Article 26

(Art. 26), whether the domestic remedies have been exhausted as regards

all aspects of this complaint and whether all aspects have been raised

within the six months' period.

(i)   The Commission recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

comprises three distinct rules. The first rule, set out in the first

sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates

the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property. The second rule,

contained in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers

deprivation of possessions and makes it subject to certain conditions.

The third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that

Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the

use of property in accordance with the general interest. The three

rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected: the second

and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference

with the  right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore

be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the

first rule (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18

February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 14, para. 41).

      Moreover, although Article 1 (Art. 1) contains no explicit

procedural requirements, the proceedings at issue must afford the

individual a reasonable opportunity of putting his or her case to the

responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the

measures interfering with his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.

1 (P1-1). In ascertaining whether this condition has been satisfied a

comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (cf.,

e.g., Eur. Court HR, Agosi v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 October

1986, Series A no. 108, p. 19, para. 55; Hentrich v. France judgment

of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 21, para. 49).

      Adopting a global point of view, the Commission considers that

Kemijoki Oy's surveying of the applicants' properties as well as its

mining claims relating to those properties have amounted to an

interference with the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of

their possessions. For the purposes of the first sentence of the first

paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1) the Commission must determine whether

a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general

interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the

individuals' fundamental rights (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Sporrong and

Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, p. 26, para. 69).

      The Commission accepts that the surveying permit pursued a

general interest, as it allowed Kemijoki Oy to survey the applicants'

properties with a view possibly to requesting permission to construct

a lake for hydro-electric production purposes. The Commission has just

found with regard to Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that the

applicants had at their disposal sufficient procedural safeguards for

the purposes of challenging the decision to permit the surveying. The

applicants have furthermore accepted that the company's activities on

their properties have not exceeded the terms of the surveying permit.

Moreover, there is no indication that the compensation paid by the

company for the surveying preceding the permit was insufficient. The

applicants were also compensated for the subsequent surveying and it

was open to them to seek further compensation through civil

proceedings.

      The Commission furthermore accepts that the mining claims granted

to Kemijoki Oy also pursue a general interest, there being no

indication that they are aimed at circumventing the procedure under the

Water Act for examining the company's request for permission to

construct the lake and the power station. Rather the claims must be

regarded as subsidiary to that request, as they secure the company's

right to extract minerals in the course of the possible construction

of the power station. The applicants were able to appeal to the Supreme

Administrative Court against the decision to grant the claims. They

have furthermore accepted that the company's activities on their

properties have not gone beyond the terms of those claims and that they

have not significantly hampered the applicants' use of their

properties. In addition, the Commission notes that the applicants are

free to request forfeiture of the claims for any failure by the company

to meet its legally prescribed financial obligations towards them.

      Finally, it has not been alleged that in the current proceedings

before the Water Court the applicants have been prevented from

objecting to Kemijoki Oy's request for permission to construct the

artificial lake. Although noting that these proceedings have already

lasted some five years at one court level, the Commission does not find

that in the overall circumstances the applicants' ownership of their

properties has been rendered precarious to such an extent as to raise

a serious issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

      Summing up, the Commission finds that so far the applicants have

not been made to carry an individual and excessive burden and that a

fair balance has been struck between the conflicting interests at

stake, regard also being had to the procedural safeguards afforded to

the applicants. Accordingly, there is no appearance of a violation of

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

(ii)  The Commission finds no indication that the measures taken by

Kemijoki Oy on the applicants' properties have violated their right to

respect for their private life and homes within the meaning of Article

8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention. The same goes for the mere

possibility that their properties might in the future be submerged in

the lake.

(iii) The Commission considers that no further issues arise with regard

to Articles 13, 17 and 18 (Art. 13, 17, 18) of the Convention.

      It follows that the whole of this complaint must be rejected as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

        H.C. KRÜGER                         S. TRECHSEL

         Secretary                           President

     to the Commission                    of the Commission

                                ANNEX

      The applicants are:

      1.   Mr Arto Keto-Tokoi, a farmer born in 1963;

      2.   Mrs Helmi Poikela, a pensioner born in 1923;

      3.   Mr Tauno Poikela, a pensioner born in 1927 and later

           deceased;

      4.   Ms Eevi Tannervo, a pensioner born in 1917; and

      5.   Ms Rauha Vesanen, a pensioner born in 1922.

      All applicants are (or were) Finnish citizens and reside (or

resided) at Pelkosenniemi.