Date when decision was rendered: 11.6.1995

Judicial body: Supreme Court

Reference: Report No. 2435; S94/1432

Reference to source

KKO 1995:117.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1995 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1995 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1995 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1995

Pages: pp. 492-502

Subject

Saami, right to culture, linguistic minorities, indigenous peoples, land ownership rights,
samer, rätt till kultur, språkliga minoriteter, ursprungsfolk, rätt till land,
saamelaiset, oikeus kulttuuriin, kielivähemmistöt, alkuperäiskansat, maanomistusoikeus,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 2-2 of the Act on Reindeer Husbandry

= renskötsellagen 2 § 2 mom.

= poronhoitolaki 2 § 2 mom.

CCPR-27

Abstract

Four Saami reindeer breeders asked the court of first instance to confirm their right to practise reindeer husbandry on a certain piece of land owned by the state and to confirm that this right entail a right to stop the state from constructing new roads and logging in the area.According to the Saami applicants, their right to practise reindeer husbandry on the land, which was based on their right to enjoy their own culture in community with the other members of their group, was so strong that it restricted other forms of land use in the same area.The applicants referred to the views of the UN Human Rights Committee in the cases of Kitok v.Sweden (Communication No. 197/1985, views of adopted on 27 July 1988) and Ominayak v.Canada (Communication No. 167/1984, views adopted on 26 March 1990).

The court of first instance found that the logging to some extent and at certain times made reindeer husbandry more difficult.According to section 2-2 of the Act on Reindeer Husbandry, the land area concerned in the case may not be used in such a way as to significantly harm reindeer husbandry.In its decision, the court of first instance stated that on the land area in question both Saami and non-Saami practised reindeer husbandry, that the interests of the applicants had to a great extent been taken into consideration when planning the logging and the construction of roads, and that it was a generally known fact that the Saami for a long time had acted and worked together with and also to some extent merged into the majority population.The applicants had also not shown in which way Saami reindeer husbandry would differ from other reindeer husbandry in a Saami area.The court of first instance, taking into consideration Article 27 of the CCPR, therefore rejected the application.

The court of appeal stated that being a minority in accordance with Article 27 of the CCPR, the applicants could claim rights under the CCPR, notwithstanding the Act on Reindeer Husbandry.Even if the logging and construction of roads may , i.a., imply that the applicants to some extent have to supply the reindeer with extra food in winter, this would not, in the opinion of the court, hinder the applicants from practising the reindeer husbandry that is part of the Saami culture.The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.

The Supreme Court, having received a copy of the views of the Human Rights Committee of 26 October 1994 on the complaint by certain Saami reindeer breeders in the Angel area (I.Länsman et al v.Finland, Communication No. 511/1992), upheld the decisions of the lower courts.According to the Supreme Court, it had not been shown that the construction of roads and logging would have stopped the reindeer breeders from practising the reindeer husbandry that forms part of the Saami culture and thus to enjoy their own culture in community with the other members of their group.The rapporteur in the case suggested the Supreme Court include a reference to the protection of the biodiversity of the area in question in its judgment.

See also the decisions of the Human Rights Committee in the case of J.Länsman et al. v.Finland (Communication No. 671/1995, views adopted on 30 October 1996) and J.Länsman et al. v.Finland (Communication No. 1023/2001, views adopted 17 March 2005).

8.4.1998 / 22.4.2005 / ASADINMA

Date when decision was rendered: 30.8.1996

Judicial body: Rovaniemi Court of Appeal = Rovaniemi hovrätt = Rovaniemen hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 601; S96/396

Reference to source

Registry of the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal

Rovaniemi hovrätts registratorskontor

Rovaniemen hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

Saami, right to culture, linguistic minorities, indigenous peoples, land ownership rights,
samer, rätt till kultur, språkliga minoriteter, ursprungsfolk, rätt till land,
saamelaiset, oikeus kulttuuriin, kielivähemmistöt, alkuperäiskansat, maanomistusoikeus,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 2-2 of the Act on Reindeer Husbandry

= renskötsellagen 2 § 2 mom.

= poronhoitolaki 2 § 2 mom.

CCPR-27

Abstract

Two Saami reindeer breeders asked the court of first instance to confirm their right to practise reindeer husbandry on two land areas owned by the state and to confirm that this right entail a right to stop the state from constructing new roads and from logging in the area, and to prohibit the Forest and Park Service (Metsähallitus) from any such activities under penalty of a fine.They also asked the court to, if not prohibiting further logging, define what kind of logging in the area is to be considered as not harming the practise of Saami reindeer husbandry.The Forest and Park Service rejected the claims.

The court of first instance referred to documents by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court and the UN Human Rights Committee in stating that the issue of the minority status and the right to practise reindeer husbandry as a part of the Saami culture was legally indisputable.The decisive question was whether the harm caused by the logging was so serious that it should be considered as abolishing the opportunity to practise the reindeer husbandry that forms part of the culture in a profitable and reasonable way that has adapted to the development.Taking into account, i.a., the statement by the Forest and Park Service on planned logging in the area concerned, the court of first instance concluded that logging in the first area would not violate the right of the applicants to enjoy their culture in community with the other members of their group, but that logging in the second area in question would.The Forest and Park Service was therefore prohibited from such activity in the second area under penalty of a fine.

The Forest and Park Service appealed to the court of appeal, which also referred to the rights of the Saami under Article 27 of the CCP.In its judgment the court concluded that the facts showed that the planned logging and road construction would not violate sections 2-2 and 42-3 of the Reindeer Husbandry Act.The court of appeal quashed the judgment of the court of first instance and the imposition of liability to fines.The Saami applicants were ordered to pay the trial costs of the Forest and Park Service (a total of over FIM 73,000).

The Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal.

See also Äärelä and Näkkäläjärvi v.Finland (Communication No.779/1997), views of the Human Rights Committee of 24 October 2001.

16.4.1998 / 5.8.2003 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered: 31.3.1999

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 692 (614 and 632/1/97)

Reference to source

KHO 1999:14.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1999 I January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1999 I januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1999 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 1999

Pages: pp. 98-103

Subject

Saami, right to culture, indigenous peoples,
samer, rätt till kultur, ursprungsfolk,
saamelaiset, oikeus kulttuuriin, alkuperäiskansat,

Relevant legal provisions

section 2-2 of the Act on Reindeer Husbandry; sections 6 and 12 of the Mining Act; section 14-3 of the Constitution Act

= renskötsellagen 2 § 2 mom.; gruvlagen 6 §, 12 §; regeringsformen 14 § 3 mom.

= poronhoitolaki 2 § 2 mom.; kaivoslaki 6 §, 12 §; hallitusmuoto 14 § 3 mom.

CCPR-27

Abstract

In 1996, the Supreme Administrative Court had quashed two decisions of the Ministry of Trade and Industry concerning applications for mining concessions in areas inhabited by the Sami and had returned the issues to the Ministry for a new consideration (decisions of the court nos. 1448 and 1453 of 15 May 1996).With reference to Article 27 of the CCPR, the court had ruled that before making its decision the Ministry should assess the possible effects of the mining concessions for Sami reindeer husbandry.When reconsidering the applications in 1997, the Ministry heard the representatives of the Sami Parliament and requested statements from the reindeer herders' associations concerned.Then the Ministry amended its previous decisions by adding a requirement by which the applicant for the mining concessions was placed under an obligation to negotiate with the reindeer herders' associations concerned on certain details relative to the mining concessions and their implementation.

The applicant for the mining concessions, two reindeer herders' associations as well as two reindeer breeders appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court which quashed the decision of the Ministry.According to the court, the Ministry should have made new decisions on the applications instead of amending its previous decisions.The court continued by referring to Article 27 of the CCPR and the fact that the concept of "culture" in Article 27 covers reindeer herding as an essential component of the Sami culture.It also referred to section 14-3 of the Constitution Act (on the right of the Sami, as an indigenous people, to maintain and develop their own culture) as well as to section 2-2 of the Act on Reindeer Husbandry (which prescribes that in areas intended especially for reindeer husbandry the land should not be used in a manner which causes considerable damage to reindeer husbandry).The court ruled that when considering an application for a mining concession the authorities have a duty to assess in advance the possible adverse effects of the mining concession for reindeer husbandry.This assessment cannot be postponed so as to be made on the basis of negotiations carried out after the mining concession has been granted.On these grounds, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the decision of the Ministry was contrary to the law and returned the matter to the Ministry for a new consideration.It also ordered the Ministry to pay part of the trial costs of the reindeer herders' associations and the two reindeer breeders.

6.8.2003 / 6.8.2003 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered: 22.1.2003

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 100; 1870/3/01

Reference to source

KHO 2003:3.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2003 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2003 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2003 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2005

Pages: pp. 26-40

Subject

non-discrimination, Saami, indigenous peoples, right to culture,
icke-diskriminering, samer, ursprungsfolk, rätt till kultur,
syrjintäkielto, saamelaiset, alkuperäiskansat, oikeus kulttuuriin,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 6-2, 17-3 and 18 of the Constitution Act

= grundlagen 6 § 2 mom., 17 § 3 mom. och 18 §

= perustuslaki 6 § 2 mom., 17 § 3 mom. ja 18 §.

ECHR-8; CCPR-27

Abstract

The case related to the level of and restrictions on government subsidies to reindeer herders.The applicant A, who was a Sami, based his case on the fact that government subsidies for reindeer herders were clearly lower that those afforded to farmers raising certain other animals (for example, pigs or sheep).In addition, they were subjected to a restrictive condition not applied in respect of producers of other animals, namely that the total annual income of the person must not exceed a certain amount.The Supreme Administrative Court held that these conditions did not prevent A from enjoying his culture by practising reindeer herding in community with other Sami, as required by section 17-3 of the Constitution Act and Article 27 of the CCPR.In addition, the Court found that there were acceptable reasons for the restrictions concerning the level of subsidies, and the restrictions were not in breach of the provisions on equality in section 6-2 of the Constitution Act.In support of his claim A had also referred to section 18 of the Constitution Act (the right to work and freedom to engage in commercial activity) and Article 8 of the ECHR.The Supreme Administrative Court found no breach of these provisions either.

1.4.2004 / 1.6.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 23.2.2004

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 354; 1646/1/03

Reference to source

KHO 2004:18.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2004 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2004 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2004 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2008

Pages: pp. 147-155

Subject

Saami, indigenous peoples, right to culture,
samer, ursprungsfolk, rätt till kultur,
saamelaiset, alkuperäiskansat, oikeus kulttuuriin,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 72-1 and 172-1 of the Land Use and Building Act; sections 1 and 7 of the Act on the Protection of Wilderness Reserves; section 17-3 of the Constitution Act

= markanvändnings- och bygglag 72 § 1 mom. och 172 § 1 mom.; ödemarkslag 1 § och 7 §; grundlagen 17 § 3 mom.

= maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki 72 § 1 mom. ja 172 § 1 mom; erämaalaki 1 § ja 7 §; perustuslaki 17 § 3 mom.

CCPR-27

Abstract

On the basis of the Land Use and Building Act, the regional environment centre had granted the Forest and Park Service a right to deviate from the provisions of the Act and raise a service building in an area which had been designated as a wilderness reserve in the Act on the Protection of Wilderness Reserves.A permission for deviation was needed as there was no legally binding local master plan and the building would be situated in a shore area.The Forest and Park Service was in the process of drafting a plan for the protection and use of the area, as required by the Act on the Protection of Wilderness Reserves.However, this plan had not yet been confirmed by the Ministry of the Environment.The particular area was inhabited by the Skolt Sami.The local Skolt Sami council (kolttaneuvosto) appealed against the decision of the environment centre to the administrative court.The applicants referred, among other things, to the protection of the Sami culture and traditional means of livelihood, as provided for in the Constitution Act and other relevant legislation concerning the Sami.The administrative court quashed the decision of the environment centre.It referred to Article 27 of the CCPR, section 17-3 of the Constitution Act and the right of the Sami, as an indigenous people, to maintain and develop their own language and culture and ruled that these provisions had to be taken into account along with those of the Land Use and Building Act.The court pointed out that according to the Land Use and Building Act, a deviation from the Act shall not impede planning, the implementation of a plan or other organisation of land use.When considering a permission to deviate from the Act, the environment centre also has to consider whether the deviation results in the implementation of a project which impedes planning or organisation of land use as prescribed in law.As the building site in this case was to be in a wilderness reserve, the Act on the Protection of Wilderness Reserves also applied.This Act requires that there is a specific plan for the protection and use of the area.Any building activities on the area are based on this plan.The court concluded that as there was no legally binding plan for the area yet, there were not legal grounds to permit a deviation from the Land Use and Building Act.The Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the administrative court and rejected the appeal made by the Forest and Park Service.In its decision, the Court did not refer to international human rights law.

20.1.2005 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI