AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 27033/95

                      by KÖNKÄMÄ and 38 other Saami villages

                      against Sweden

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

25 November 1996, the following members being present:

           Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H. DANELIUS

                 F. MARTINEZ

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 K. HERNDL

                 E. BIELIUNAS

                 E.A. ALKEMA

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           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 7 December 1994

by Könkämä and 38 other Saami villages against Sweden and registered

on 13 April 1995 under file No. 27033/95;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 30 January 1996 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicants on 21 March 1996;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicants are the following 39 Swedish Saami villages

(samebyar): Könkämä, Lainiovuoma, Saarivuoma, Gabna, Laevas, Girjas,

Mellanbyn, Sörkaitum, Sirkas, Jåkkåkaska, Tuorpon, Luokta-Mavas,

Semisjaur-Njarg, Svaipa, Gällivare, Serri, Udtja, Ståkke, Maskaure,

Östra Kikkejaure, Gran, Ran, Umbyn, Vapsten, Vilhelmina Norra,

Vilhelmina Södra, Malå, Frostviken Norra, Frostviken Mellersta,

Rattevare, Hotagen, Offerdal, Sösjö, Kall, Handölsdalen, Tåssåsen,

Mittådalen, Tännäs and Idre.  Before the Commission they are

represented by their lawyer, Mr. Jörgen Bohlin, Umeå.

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

summarised as follows.

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

      In December 1992 the Swedish Parliament passed a Bill

(1992/93:32) introducing a new system for licensing small game hunting

and fishing on State property above the cultivation line

(odlingsgränsen) and in the reindeer grazing mountains

(renbetesfjällen).  One purpose of the Bill was to give the general

public wider access to hunting and fishing in the mountain region.

      As part of this new system, the Government enacted a new Reindeer

Herding Ordinance (Rennäringsförordningen, 1993:384) containing

provisions on the licensing of hunting and fishing.  It entered into

force on 1 July 1993.  By virtue of an authorisation in the Ordinance,

the National Board of Agriculture (Statens jordbruksverk), on 30 July

1993, issued more detailed regulations on this matter.  The regulations

entered into force on 16 August 1993.

      Following the introduction of these regulations, the various

County Administrative Boards (länsstyrelserna) issued regional rules.

The Board of the County of Västerbotten issued rules regarding hunting

on 13 August 1993 and regarding fishing on 16 November 1993.  The Board

of the County of Jämtland issued its rules on 15 September and

22 December 1993 respectively.  Finally, the rules of the Board of the

County of Norrbotten were issued on 2 November 1993 as regards hunting

and on 14 and 30 December 1993 as regards fishing.

      The Saami villages in Västerbotten and Norrbotten appealed

against their County Administrative Boards' decisions on the licensing

of fishing, claiming that they were not in conformity with the

regulations of the National Board of Agriculture.  That Board rejected

the appeal on 8 February 1994.  The villages' further appeal was

rejected by the Government on 17 March 1994.

      The Saami claim that they have immemorial rights including not

only rights of reindeer herding, hunting and fishing on certain land,

as confirmed by a 1993 amendment to the Reindeer Herding Act

(Rennäringslagen, 1971:437), but also ownership to the land and waters

above the cultivation line and in the reindeer grazing mountains.  In

any event, they claim exclusive hunting and fishing rights in these

areas.  Under the new licensing system they have allegedly no control

of where and to what extent hunting and fishing take place.  Under the

previous system, hunting and fishing licences were granted by the

County Administrative Boards after consultation with the Saami villages

concerned.  There was no obligation to grant licences even in cases

where the requirements under Section 32 of the Reindeer Herding Act

were met, as this Section only stated that licences "may" be granted.

Section 3 of the new Reindeer Herding Ordinance, however, provides that

licences "shall" be granted if these requirements are met.

      The applicant Saami villages and some individual Saami thus

applied to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) for a

review of the decisions of the National Board of Agriculture and the

different County Administrative Boards under the Act on Judicial Review

of Certain Administrative Decisions (Lagen om rättsprövning av vissa

förvaltningsbeslut, 1988:205 - "the 1988 Act"), claiming that these

decisions were unlawful.

      By decision of 22 June 1994, the Supreme Administrative Court

dismissed the application, finding that, under Section 1 of the

1988 Act, it could only review decisions in administrative matters

(förvaltningsärenden), i.e. decisions in individual cases.  As the

challenged decisions had the character of norm decisions, they could

not be reviewed under the 1988 Act.

      On 23 June 1994 the County Administrative Board of the County of

Jämtland introduced some further rules on hunting.  The appeals lodged

by some Saami villages and individual Saami were rejected by the

National Board of Agriculture on 13 April 1995 and the Government on

16 November 1995.

B.    Relevant domestic law and practice

      Reindeer herding, hunting and fishing are fundamental elements

of the Saami culture. Reindeer herding is regulated by the Reindeer

Herding Act.  A person of Saami extraction has, under the Act, a right

based on custom from time immemorial (urminnes hävd) to use land and

waters in designated areas of northern Sweden for reindeer herding.

To exercise this right, the Saami has to be a member of a Saami

village.  The villages are registered by the County Administrative

Boards, which also allocate land for reindeer herding to each village.

According to Section 10 of the Act, a Saami village is responsible for

the herding within its area and represents its members in such matters.

      General rules concerning hunting and fishing are to be found in

the Hunting Act (Jaktlagen, 1987:259) and the Fishing Act (Fiskelagen,

1993:787).  The rights of hunting and fishing normally belong to the

respective property owners, who may sell hunting and fishing licences

to the public.  With regard to the Saami's right of hunting and

fishing, reference is made to special provisions governing these

rights.  These provisions are included in the Reindeer Herding Act and

the Reindeer Herding Ordinance.

      According to Section 25 of the Reindeer Herding Act, a member of

a Saami village may, with certain restrictions, hunt and fish on the

land allocated to the village.  This particular section is placed under

the heading "The Exercise of the Reindeer Herding Right", indicating

that the right to hunt and fish is part of the Saami's immemorial right

to herd reindeer.  Persons who are not members of the Saami village

may, according to Section 32 of the Act, be granted licences to hunt

or fish.  On State property above the cultivation line and in the

reindeer grazing mountains licences may not be granted if considerable

inconvenience for the reindeer herding or unacceptable infringements

of the village members' rights under Section 25 are caused.  Licences

are, since 1886, granted by State authorities, at present the County

Administrative Boards.  The licence fees are divided between the Saami

villages concerned and a special fund (Samefonden) the object of which

is to promote reindeer herding, Saami culture and Saami organisations.

The Saami villages and their members are not allowed to grant hunting

and fishing licences.

       According to Section 3 of the Reindeer Herding Ordinance,

licences for small game hunting and fishing with hand-held tackle shall

be granted unless it causes significant inconvenience for the reindeer

herding or is prohibited by Section 32 of the Reindeer Herding Act.

Section 8 of the Ordinance provides that the National Board of

Agriculture shall issue more detailed regulations in this respect.

Under Section 2, the respective County Administrative Boards decide on

the granting of hunting and fishing licences.

      Under Sections 2 and 3 of the regulations issued by the National

Board of Agriculture (Föreskrifter om upplåtelser av rätt till

småviltsjakt och fiske på statens mark ovanför odlingsgränsen och på

renbetesfjällen, SJVFS 1993:95), persons living within the

municipalities concerned shall be given annual licences for small game

hunting and others shall be given day licences.  These sections do not

affect the right of the Saami to hunt free of charge on the land

allocated to their villages.  Sections 4 and 5 contain certain

restrictions aimed at protecting reindeer herding.  For example,

hunting may not take place within certain distances from settlements

and reindeer grazing areas.  In respect of the licensing of fishing,

Sections 10-12 lay down certain restrictions, inter alia that licensing

may be prohibited in some areas if the Saami's needs of fishing waters

so require.

      A decision by a County Administrative Board on licences, whether

it concerns general rules to be applied when granting licences or the

actual grant of an individual licence, may, under Section 36 of the

Reindeer Herding Ordinance, be appealed to the National Board of

Agriculture.  That Board's decisions may be appealed to the Government,

in accordance with Section 5 of the Instruction for the National Board

of Agriculture (Förordning med instruktion för statens jordbruksverk,

1991:375) in conjunction with Section 30 of the Ordinance on Government

Agencies and Institutions (Verksförordningen, 1987:1100).  Under

Section 22 of the Public Administration Act (Förvaltningslagen,

1986:223), a negative decision may be appealed by those who are

concerned by it.  According to general legal principles, this means

that the decision must have effects on interests of the appellants

which are acknowledged by law.  As the rights of the Saami village

members are to be taken into account when granting individual hunting

and fishing licences (cf. Section 32 of the Reindeer Herding Act and

Section 3 of the Reindeer Herding Ordinance), Saami villages have locus

standi to appeal against decisions to grant such licences.

      Neither the Reindeer Herding Act nor the Reindeer Herding

Ordinance contains any provision providing for the possibility to

appeal to a court.  However, under the 1988 Act, the Supreme

Administrative Court has jurisdiction in certain cases.  The Act

applies to decisions which affect the personal status of private

citizens or their mutual personal or economic relations (cf. Chapter

8, Section 2 of the Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen)), as

well as decisions which affect the relations between private citizens

and the public administration and relate to obligations incumbent upon

private citizens or otherwise interfere with the personal or economic

affairs of private citizens (cf. Chapter 8, Section 3 of the Instrument

of Government). Section 1 of the 1988 Act provides as

follows:(Translation)

      "At the request of a private party in such administrative

      proceedings before the Government or an administrative

      authority as pertain to any situation envisaged by Chapter

      8, Sections 2 and 3, of the Instrument of Government, the

      Supreme Administrative Court shall review whether the

      decision in the case is contrary to any legal rule in a

      manner indicated by the requesting party or otherwise

      apparent from the circumstances of the case.

      Judicial review may pertain only to such decisions as

      - imply exercise of public authority in relation to a

      private subject,

      - cannot otherwise be reviewed by a court except following

      a request for relief for substantive defects, and

      - cannot otherwise be subject to review."

      Moreover, under Chapter 13, Section 2 of the Code of Judicial

Procedure (Rättegångsbalken), a judgment declaring whether or not a

certain legal relationship exists may be requested in the ordinary

courts, provided that there is uncertainty as to the relationship and

this uncertainty is detrimental to the plaintiff.  Under this

provision, a physical or legal person may bring proceedings in the

courts, claiming to have a "better right" than another person,

including the State, to certain property.  The right claimed may be a

right of ownership or, for instance, a more limited right such as an

exclusive right to hunting and fishing.

      In the so-called Taxed Mountains Case (Skattefjällsmålet, NJA

1981:1), five Saami villages of the county of Jämtland - the Saami

villages Frostviken Norra, Frostviken Mellersta, Rattevare, Hotagen and

Offerdal, all applicants before the Commission in the present case -

sought a declaratory judgment establishing that they had a "better

right" than the State to certain areas of Jämtland, the main part known

as the taxed mountains.  They claimed that they had a right of

ownership or, alternatively, several types of limited rights, including

exclusive hunting and fishing rights, to the area in question.  After

extensive investigations made by courts at three levels, the Supreme

Court (Högsta domstolen) rejected the villages' claims by judgment of

15 January 1981, although it acknowledged that the members of the Saami

villages had a strongly protected right of usage (bruksrätt).

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 7 December 1994 and registered

on 13 April 1995.

      On 4 September 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

30 January 1996.  The applicants replied on 21 March 1996.

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicants claim that the national regulations and regional

rules on small game hunting and fishing, decided in 1993 by the

National Board of Agriculture and the respective County Administrative

Boards, constitute an infringement of their exclusive rights to hunting

and fishing in the area in question and thus violate their rights under

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.  The applicants further

claim that these decisions discriminate against the Saami, as, unlike

other property owners, they are not allowed to license hunting and

fishing on their property themselves. In this respect, they invoke

Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1.

2.    Furthermore, under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants

complain that they have not been able to obtain a court determination

of their rights.

THE LAW

1.    The applicants claim that the national regulations and regional

rules on small game hunting and fishing, decided in 1993 by the

National Board of Agriculture and the respective County Administrative

Boards, constitute an infringement of their exclusive rights to hunting

and fishing in the area in question and thus violate their rights under

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.  The applicants

further claim that these decisions discriminate against the Saami, as,

unlike other property owners, they are not allowed to license hunting

and fishing on their property themselves. In this respect, they invoke

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

      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 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides the following:

      "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 authority, property, birth or

      other status."

      The respondent Government submit firstly that, although the

applicant Saami villages are to be regarded as non-governmental

organisations, they cannot claim to be victims of the alleged

violations within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention

as the hunting and fishing rights under the Reindeer Herding Act are

not afforded to the villages but to their members.  The applicants'

victim status is excluded also on the ground that they found their

complaints on rights which they do not have.  Their alleged ownership

rights to the land and waters in question or their - alternative -

exclusive rights to hunting and fishing in the area are not recognised

under Swedish law nor have they been substantiated before Swedish

courts.

      The Government further submit that the Saami villages have chosen

an inadequate and certainly ineffective domestic remedy, as the

authorities and courts which deal with an appeal against or a legal

review of the decisions called into question are not entitled to take

into consideration any of the alleged Saami rights as long as a dispute

with regard to these rights has not been finally settled by a court of

law in due order.  In the Government's view, all domestic remedies for

the purpose of establishing the existence of ownership rights or

exclusive rights to hunting and fishing must be exhausted before the

question whether any such right has been violated can be brought before

the Commission.  With respect to the five applicant Saami villages

which were parties to the proceedings in the Taxed Mountains Case,

adjudicated by the Supreme Court in January 1981, the Government

contend that the period of six months for lodging an application with

the Commission, laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention,

has not been observed.  As regards the remaining 34 applicant villages,

the Government maintain that they have failed to exhaust domestic

remedies as prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26), as they have never

taken proceedings against the Swedish State regarding the question

whether the Saami, rather than the State, have the rights claimed.  As

is shown by the Taxed Mountains Case, such an action has been and is

still open to them.  Moreover, the applicants applied to the Supreme

Administrative Court for a review under the 1988 Act of the decisions

of the National Board of Agriculture and the respective County

Administrative Boards.  However, only the decisions of the County

Administrative Boards of Västerbotten and Norrbotten with respect to

fishing were appealed to the Government, and no review of the

Government's decision was requested.  Thus, the applicants have failed

to exhaust domestic remedies also in this respect.

      The applicants submit, with respect to the question of victim

status, that the Swedish Supreme Court has found that the Saami

villages, under Swedish law, both represent their members and receive

compensation for any infringements of the reindeer herding rights.

Moreover, the members have personal economic liability for the

obligations of the respective Saami village.  The applicants further

maintain that the question is not whether they base their complaints

on rights which, according to the Government, they do not have but

rather that the Swedish State, by introducing the new system for

licensing hunting and fishing, tried to give itself rights which the

State did not previously claim.

      In regard to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the

applicants assert that the legal remedies referred to by the State have

already been tried with respect to a sufficient number of decisions

with known results and are not, in any case, effective since the

authorities examining them are the very authorities that have issued

the challenged regulations.      The Commission considers that the

exclusive hunting and fishing rights claimed by the applicant Saami

villages in the present case can be regarded as possessions within the

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

      The Commission notes that it is not disputed that the applicant

Saami villages are to be regarded as non-governmental organisations

within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.  The

Commission further recalls that the villages, under the Reindeer

Herding Act, are responsible for the herding within their respective

areas and represent their members in such matters.  Moreover, the

rights designated in that Act can be exercised by a Saami only as a

member of a Saami village.  For these reasons, the Commission considers

that the applicant villages may, for the purposes of Article 25

(Art. 25), claim to be victims of the violations alleged under the

Convention and Protocol No. 1.

      The other points raised by the Government under Article 25

(Art. 25) of the Convention touch upon the question whether the

domestic remedies available to the applicants have been exhausted, i.e.

whether the applicants have complied with the requirements under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention and will therefore be considered

below.

      The Commission recalls that, in the present case, the applicants

are challenging the regulations on the licensing of hunting and fishing

issued, on the basis of the 1993 Reindeer Herding Ordinance, by the

National Board of Agriculture on 30 July 1993 and the regional rules

on these matters issued by the respective County Administrative Boards

between August and December 1993.  The Saami villages of Västerbotten

and Norrbotten appealed to the National Board of Agriculture and the

Government against their County Administrative Boards' decisions

regarding fishing, claiming that they were not in conformity with the

regulations issued by the National Board of Agriculture.  However, with

respect to the other regional decisions challenged before the

Commission, no appeal was made.

      The applicants maintain that they did not have an effective

domestic remedy, as the appeal authorities, i.e. the National Board of

Agriculture and the Government, had issued the regulations challenged

before the Commission.  The Commission notes, however, that the

Government had not issued the challenged regulations.  It is true that

the Government had enacted the Reindeer Herding Ordinance on the basis

of which the regulations of the National Board of Agriculture were

issued.  This does not mean, however, that the Government was unable

independently to determine whether the decisions taken by the County

Administrative Boards were in conformity with the said regulations or

with the Ordinance itself (cf. Eur. Court HR, Silver and Others v. the

United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 43, para.

116).  Thus, in so far as the applicants complain about this alleged

lack of conformity, they had an effective domestic remedy which was

only partially exhausted.

      It appears, however, that the question as to whether the regional

rules decided by the County Administrative Boards conform with superior

norms is not the real subject-matter of the applicants' complaints to

the Commission.  Instead, the applicants consider that the new hunting

and fishing system introduced in 1993 was harmful to Saami interests

and violated their exclusive hunting and fishing rights in the areas

concerned.

      If the Saami villages were to be considered to have such

exclusive hunting and fishing rights as they claim, these rights might

have been infringed first, in a more general way, as a result of the

introduction in 1993 of the new system for licensing hunting and

fishing in that the Reindeer Herding Ordinance and the regulations and

regional rules issued under that system could be considered to have

deprived the Saami of their exclusive rights, and secondly, in a more

concrete manner, by the individual decisions to grant licences to hunt

or fish in the areas concerned.

      It thus appears that the central issue is whether the Saami

villages were holders of exclusive hunting and fishing rights, and the

question arises whether they had any remedy in this respect before the

Swedish courts.

      The Commission notes that the existence of any such exclusive

rights is in dispute between the parties.  No exclusive rights are

provided for in the applicable legislation, but the Saami villages base

their claims on various historical facts of considerable complexity.

      The Commission notes that related issues were examined in the

Taxed Mountains Case where the ordinary courts, in the last resort the

Supreme Court, decided on the claims of five Saami villages to have a

"better right" than the State to certain areas in Jämtland. Similarly,

the Swedish courts would also appear to be competent to give a

declaratory judgment on whether or not the Saami villages are holders

under Swedish law of exclusive hunting and fishing rights in the areas

concerned in the present case.

      It is true that five of the applicants, i.e. the Saami villages

Frostviken Norra, Frostviken Mellersta, Rattevare, Hotagen and

Offerdal, were also parties to the Taxed Mountains Case and that the

Supreme Court's judgment in that case deals to some extent with their

hunting and fishing rights.  However, in so far as that judgment could

be considered to have determined the claim of those five applicant

villages to exclusive hunting and fishing rights, the Commission notes

that the present application has not been brought before the Commission

within six months from that judgment as required by Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention.

      The Commission adds that, in regard to individual decisions by

the County Administrative Boards to grant hunting and fishing licences,

the Saami villages may lodge appeals with the National Board of

Agriculture and the Government.  It would appear, furthermore, that the

Government's decisions on such individual matters, implying the

exercise of public authority in relation to private subjects, could be

reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court under the 1988 Act.  In

such proceedings, it would be determined whether the decisions to grant

individual licences are contrary to any legal rule. The applicants have

not shown that they have appealed against any such individual decision.

      Having regard to the above, the Commission finds that the

applicants have not complied with the conditions laid down in Article

26 (Art. 26) of the Convention and that this part of the application

is inadmissible under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

2.    The applicants also complain that they have not been able to

obtain a court determination of their rights.  They invoke Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as

follows:

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

      is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ..."

      In addition to the objections referred to under 1 above, the

Government submit that the applicants' complaints are manifestly ill-

founded.  In so far as the complaints are founded on the assertion that

the applicants' exclusive rights to hunting and fishing have been

violated, the Government acknowledge that the dispute concerns their

civil rights and that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is

applicable.  The Government maintain, however, that proceedings brought

under Chapter 13, Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, in which

it would be determined whether the Saami have the alleged rights, would

clearly satisfy the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6).  Should a Saami

village or an individual Saami be successful in such proceedings, the

1993 provisions on hunting and fishing would be unconstitutional and

could not be applied by courts and public authorities.

      In so far as the applicants' complaints are founded on their

rights to hunting and fishing under the Reindeer Herding Act, the

Government submit that the regulations introduced in 1993 have not

affected these rights to the detriment of the Saami.  The power to

control the conditions for hunting and fishing rests with the State,

as being the land owner, and the introduction of the new regulations

was not decisive for the dispute regarding Saami rights as brought

before the Commission in the present case.  In the Government's view,

the dispute concerning the new regulations does not, therefore, concern

the applicants' civil rights.  Thus, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention does not apply to this dispute.  Should the Commission find

that Article 6 (Art. 6) does apply to this dispute, the Government

contend that it does not give a right to challenge a law or other

regulations issued in accordance with the law, in the present case the

Reindeer Herding Ordinance and the normative rules and regulations

founded on that Ordinance.

      The applicants submit that there is no reason for them to

institute proceedings against the Swedish State, as it is the State,

and not the Saami villages, that claims that both the State and the

Saami have hunting and fishing rights in the relevant region.

Furthermore, in view of the fact that appeals are to be made to the

authorities which have issued the challenged regulations, the Saami

villages have already done what can be done.

      The Commission notes that the dispute in the present case

concerns the applicants' rights to hunt and fish in certain areas.

These rights are "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para.

1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.  Thus, this provision is applicable to

the present complaint.

      The Commission recalls that the Saami villages may bring

proceedings against the State in the ordinary courts, requesting these

courts to declare that the Saami, rather than the State, have the

rights which they claim.  Furthermore, the villages may appeal to the

Government against the County Administrative Boards' individual

decisions to grant hunting and fishing licences and it would appear

that the Government's decisions on such matters could be reviewed by

the Supreme Administrative Court under the 1988 Act.  The Commission

further recalls its conclusion under 1 above that these remedies

require to be exhausted according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention.

      Considering that the ordinary courts, in the final resort the

Supreme Court, as well as the Supreme Administrative Court are

undoubtedly "tribunals" within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention, the Commission finds that the applicants had access to

courts for the determination of their civil rights.

      It follows that this part of the application is 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

     of the Commission                    of the Commission