AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 34776/97
by Halvar FROM
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:
MM J.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
MM F. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 6 September 1996
by Halvar FROM against Sweden and registered on 5 February 1997 under
file No. 34776/97;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1924. He resides in
Sorsele.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.
a. The particular circumstances of the case
By decision of 26 May 1988, the County Administrative Board
(länsstyrelsen) of the County of Västerbotten registered an elk-hunting
area (licensområde) for the Sami village (sameby) of Ran. The area
comprised the village's pastures above the cultivation line
(odlingsgränsen) in the county, including the property owned by the
applicant. As the applicant also held a licence to hunt elk on his
property, the result was a double registration of hunting licences.
The Board's decision was based on Section 10 of the Hunting Act
(Jaktlagen, 1987:259) and Section 25 of the Reindeer Herding Act
(Rennäringslagen, 1971:437).
In 1995 and 1996 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor-
General (Riksåklagaren) and the Parliamentary Ombudsman
(Justitieombudsmannen) that the County Administrative Board had acted
arbitrarily in allowing the Sami village to hunt on his property. By
decisions of 26 June and 19 July 1996, respectively, the Prosecutor-
General and the Ombudsman decided not to take any action in the matter.
In January 1997 the applicant requested the County Administrative
Board to exclude his property from the elk-hunting area registered for
the Sami village. However, by decision of 7 January 1997, the Board
rejected the request. It found that the double registration was in
accordance with applicable law, in particular the above-mentioned
provisions. The Board also referred to the travaux préparatoires to
the Hunting Act (Government Bill 1986/87:58, p. 56), according to which
the entire pastures of a Sami village above the cultivation line,
including privately-owned land, should be registered as the village's
elk-hunting area.
The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court
(länsrätten) of the County of Västerbotten. By judgment of
20 May 1997, the court, agreeing with the reasons given by the Board,
upheld the appealed decision.
The applicant has not indicated whether he has made an appeal
against the County Administrative Court's judgment.
b. Relevant domestic law
Section 10 of the Hunting Act provides that a property owner
normally has the right to hunt on the land of his property. In
subsection 3 it is noted, however, that there are special provisions
governing the Sami's right of hunting.
Such special provisions are found in the Reindeer Herding Act.
Under Section 1 of this Act, a person of Sami extraction has a right
based on custom from time immemorial (urminnes hävd) to use land and
waters in designated areas of northern Sweden for reindeer herding.
Section 25 provides that a member of a Sami village may, with certain
restrictions, hunt on land allocated to the village. This particular
section is placed under the heading "The Exercise of the Reindeer
Herding Act", indicating that the right to hunt is part of the Sami's
immemorial right to herd reindeer.
Under Section 33 of the Hunting Act, the competent County
Administrative Board registers elk-hunting areas. According to
Section 54, its decisions may be appealed against to the administrative
courts. Leave to appeal is required in the Administrative Court of
Appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the registration of his property as
part of the elk-hunting area of the relevant Sami village violates his
property rights, including his right of ownership and his hunting
right. He does not invoke any provisions of the Convention or its
Protocols.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the registration of his property as
part of the elk-hunting area of the relevant Sami village violates his
property rights.
The Commission finds that the complaint should be examined under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention which provides as
follows:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject
to the conditions provided for by law and by the general
principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it
deems necessary to control the use of property in
accordance with the general interest or to secure the
payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
The Commission first notes that it is not clear whether the
applicant has exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention, in the present case. The Commission
finds, however, that there is no need to resolve this question as, in
any event, the application is inadmissible for the following reasons.
The Commission considers that the registration in question
constituted a measure of controlling the use of the applicant's
property falling under the second paragraph of the above provision.
Such a measure is permissible in the general interest if there exists
a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed
and the aim pursued. In striking a fair balance between the general
interest of the community and the requirement of protection of the
individual's fundamental rights, the authorities enjoy a wide margin
of appreciation (cf., e.g., Eur. Court HR, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden
judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, para. 55).
In the present case, the Commission recalls that the decision to
include the applicant's property in the relevant Sami village's
elk-hunting area was taken in accordance with the provisions of the
Hunting Act and the Reindeer Herding Act. Under the latter Act, the
Sami's right to hunt - which is connected with their right to herd
reindeer - in the areas of northern Sweden where the applicant's
property is situated is considered to be based on custom from time
immemorial. The Commission finds it to be in the general interest that
the special culture and way of life of the Sami be respected, and it
is clear that reindeer herding and hunting are important parts of that
culture and way of life. The Commission is therefore of the opinion
that the challenged decision was taken in the general interest.
Moreover, noting that the applicant was also licensed to hunt on the
property and having regard to the authorities' margin of appreciation,
the Commission does not consider the decision to be disproportionate
to the requirements of the general interest.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy