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