Information Note on the Court’s case-law 71

January 2005

Johtti Sapmelaccat r.y. and Others v. Finland (dec.) - 42969/98

Decision 18.1.2005 [Section IV]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Granting of traditional Sámi fishing rights to other local residents: inadmissible

The first applicant is an association promoting Sámi culture. The other applicants are Finnish nationals of Sámi origin. The applicants, who are not landowners themselves, enjoy fishing rights based on custom from time immemorial in several municipalities in Finland. Their rights are constitutionally protected and entitle them to fish i n the State-owned water-areas of these municipalities. In 1997, the Fishing Act was amended and public fishing rights were granted to other people living permanently in those municipalities. The applicants complain that the legislative amendment weakened t he legal position of landless Sámi people and that, as a result, their fishing rights no longer enjoy the constitutional protection of property.

Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Government’s objections: (i) victim status of first applicant: the first applicant association was not responsible for fishing within its respective area. Moreover, the fishing rights in question could only be exercised by a Sámi as a private individual; (ii) non-exhaustion: although the applicants had not challenged the contentious amendment before a national court, the nature of their rights, as recognised by the Constitution, remained very general, and the Government have failed to show the existence of an effective remedy for the applicants’ complaints.

The gener al aim of the 1997 amendment was to protect the rights of the Sámi, while ensuring the rights of other local residents as well. The applicants had not appreciably shown the adverse impact of the 1997 amendment of the Fishing Act on their concrete possibili ties to exercise their traditional fishing rights. The Court was not satisfied there had been an interference with their property rights: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes