Information Note on the Court’s case-law 27

February 2001

Aschan and Others v. Finland (dec.) - 37858/97

Decision 15.2.2001 [Section IV]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1

Control of the use of property

Owners of water areas deprived of income from the sale of fishing permits: inadmissible

The applicants were owners of water areas and local fishing associations. According to the Fish ing Act as amended in 1997, fishing with hand-held tackle became a public right, anyone having paid the fishing fee to the State being entitled to fish with hand-held tackle even in private water areas. As a result of the amendment, owners of water areas l ost the exclusive right to control fishing and fishing permits on their property. Whereas fees for permits used to be paid directly to them, the amendment provided that they fees would thereafter be paid to the State, which would partly reimburse owners as a form of compensation. Some individual applicants were professional fishermen who feared that their income would be drastically reduced as everyone became allowed to fish in their fishing waters; others lost the income which they used to derive from sell ing fishing permits or renting out their water areas to fishing associations. The applicant associations lost their income by losing their right to receive payments for fishing permits.

Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol N° 1: The introduction of the 1997 amendment and its effects constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. This interference constituted a control of their property and not a deprivation as they retained the title to it. Their right to fish was also preserved. The opinion of Parliament, according to which the amendment was in the general interest given the importance of fishing as a leisure activity, could not be considered as transgressing the margin of appreciation left to States i n such matters. Although the applicants lost part of the profit pertaining to their possessions, such a loss caused by general legislation did not necessarily call for a full compensation on the basis of this provision. Given the wide margin of appreciatio n of States in this domain, the interference with the applicants’ property rights could not be held to be disproportionate. Therefore, the State was entitled to consider necessary the enactment of the 1997 amendment: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible un der Article 6 § 1: This provision does not require that there be a national court with competence to invalidate or override national law. The control of the use of property was enacted by an amendment to the Act on Fishing. A Finnish court could only exami ne a claim of a breach of the Constitution Act if it had competence to invalidate or set aside a law adopted by Parliament. However, Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee access to court for such a claim: incompatible ratione materiae .

Inadmissible under Articl e 13: This provision does not guarantee a remedy whereby the laws of a Contracting State as such can be challenged before a national authority on the ground of their being contrary to the Convention or to corresponding domestic legal norms. The applicants’ allegations of violations of their rights under the Convention and the Protocols were directed at the effects of the Act on Fishing as amended in 1997. Article 13 does not entitle them to any remedy for such allegations: incompatible ratione materiae .

© 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