Communicated on 15 January 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 34015/14 Simo VALKEAJÄRVI against Finland lodged on 29 April 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Simo Valkeajärvi , is a Finnish national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Kuru .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. First set of proceedings

The applicant was born, went to school and grew up in the municipality of Kuru . In 2004 he inherited real estate from his parents, and he returned to live in the house situated on the property. His closest family members as well his friends live in the area.

In 2008 the applicant obtained a building permit allowing him to extend the house situated on the inherited property. During the works, the applicant ’ s application for communal aid for increasing energy-efficiency was rejected by the municipality as the real estate was marked in the detailed plans as a holiday house and not as a house destined for permanent, year-round use.

By letter dated 5 January 2012 the applicant requested that the municipality grant a derogation ( poikkeaminen , undantag ) from the planning norms and change the entry in its records from a holiday home into a house in permanent use in order to reflect the real situation. The applicant had been living permanently in the house since 2004 and it was his official place of residence. He also paid real estate tax for the house in accordance with the rate applicable for houses in permanent use.

On 24 January 2012 the municipal environmental board rejected the applicant ’ s request. It reasoned its decision by stating that the real estate was situated in an area destined for holiday homes and that the building permit had been granted only for a holiday home. Accepting a derogation in the applicant ’ s case would affect the realisation of plans and be detrimental to urban development. If a derogation were made in the applicant ’ s case, then all other landowners would have the same right, as they all had to be treated equally. Moreover, the real estate was located a long way from the services of the municipality and was not therefore suitable for permanent residence.

By letter dated 1 March 2012 the applicant appealed against the decision of the municipal environmental board to the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court ( hallinto-oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that his house be designated as a house for permanent residence . He pointed out that the house fulfilled the requirements for a house in permanent use and that there was permanent, year-round settlement, there being nine other houses in the neighbourhood. Moreover, there was a permanent congregation centre and a small sawmill in the neighbourhood. The neighbours did not object to the applicant ’ s request. Moreover, the house was situated only 11 km from the centre of the municipality and such a location was not in any way unusual in other villages. Accepting the applicant ’ s request would not create any new service obligations for the municipality.

On 17 December 2012 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal. It found that the applicant ’ s house was located in an area which in detailed plans was destined for holiday use only. The same plans indicated other areas in which permanent housing should be concentrated. The equal treatment of all landowners required that they should also be able to live permanently in the area in question, which would lead to an uncontrolled increase in permanent housing in the area. The applicant ’ s personal circumstances or the fact that the house in question was suitable for permanent residence were not relevant in the present case.

By letter dated 16 January 2013 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court ( korkein hallinto-oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) , re iterating the grounds of appeal presented before the Administrative Court. Moreover, the applicant argued that the right to live permanently in a place of one ’ s choice could not be dependent on the municipality in which one lived and the will of a particular civil servant in that municipality. The question of a constitutionally-protected right to equal treatment of citizens arose, since similar requests had been accepted in other municipalities. For example in the Tampere area the municipalities had abandoned the idea that permanent housing could not be accepted in sparsely populated areas. Even in the applicant ’ s municipality such a decision had been made in respect of another house that was located 8 km from the centre of the municipality. The applicant stressed that his request was about the right or possibility to live on the property he had inherited.

On 1 November 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.

2. Second set of proceedings

On an unspecified date the applicant applied again for communal aid for increasing energy-efficiency.

On 27 December 2012 the applicant ’ s request was again rejected by a municipal civil servant.

By letter dated 10 February 2013 the applicant requested that the municipal environmental board rectify the decision of 27 December 2012 and state that there was no impediment to registering his house as a house for permanent use.

On 11 June 2013 the municipal environmental board upheld the decision of 27 December 2012 not to grant communal aid for increasing energy ‑ efficiency. No decision was made concerning the registration of the applicant ’ s house as a house for permanent use. It is not known whether the applicant has appealed further against this decision.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 9 § 1 of the Finnish Constitution ( Suomen perustuslaki , Finlands grundlag ; Act no. 731/1999) provides the following:

“Freedom of movement

Finnish citizens and foreigners legally resident in Finland have the right to move freely within the country and to choose their place of residence.”

According to Article 6 of the Constitution:

“Everyone is equal before the law.

No one shall, without an acceptable reason, be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex, age, origin, language, religion, conviction, opinion, health, disability or other reason that concerns his or her person....”

According to Article 106 of the Constitution, if in a matter being tried by a court of law the application of an Act would be in evident conflict with the Constitution, the court of law shall give primacy to the provision in the Constitution.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that his freedom to choose his place of residence has been violated. He has not been able to live fully in the municipality where he was born and grew up, even though his house there fulfils all the criteria for permanent, year-round residence. Permanent residence in a house destined for holiday use can be prohibited under penalty of a fine.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a restriction on the applicant ’ s freedom to choose his residence, guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4? If so, was that restriction also justified by the public interest, within the meaning of Article 2 § 4 of Protocol No. 4?