AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27033/95
by KÖNKÄMÄ and 38 other Saami villages
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
25 November 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 7 December 1994
by Könkämä and 38 other Saami villages against Sweden and registered
on 13 April 1995 under file No. 27033/95;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent
Government on 30 January 1996 and the observations in reply submitted
by the applicants on 21 March 1996;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are the following 39 Swedish Saami villages
(samebyar): Könkämä, Lainiovuoma, Saarivuoma, Gabna, Laevas, Girjas,
Mellanbyn, Sörkaitum, Sirkas, Jåkkåkaska, Tuorpon, Luokta-Mavas,
Semisjaur-Njarg, Svaipa, Gällivare, Serri, Udtja, Ståkke, Maskaure,
Östra Kikkejaure, Gran, Ran, Umbyn, Vapsten, Vilhelmina Norra,
Vilhelmina Södra, Malå, Frostviken Norra, Frostviken Mellersta,
Rattevare, Hotagen, Offerdal, Sösjö, Kall, Handölsdalen, Tåssåsen,
Mittådalen, Tännäs and Idre. Before the Commission they are
represented by their lawyer, Mr. Jörgen Bohlin, Umeå.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
In December 1992 the Swedish Parliament passed a Bill
(1992/93:32) introducing a new system for licensing small game hunting
and fishing on State property above the cultivation line
(odlingsgränsen) and in the reindeer grazing mountains
(renbetesfjällen). One purpose of the Bill was to give the general
public wider access to hunting and fishing in the mountain region.
As part of this new system, the Government enacted a new Reindeer
Herding Ordinance (Rennäringsförordningen, 1993:384) containing
provisions on the licensing of hunting and fishing. It entered into
force on 1 July 1993. By virtue of an authorisation in the Ordinance,
the National Board of Agriculture (Statens jordbruksverk), on 30 July
1993, issued more detailed regulations on this matter. The regulations
entered into force on 16 August 1993.
Following the introduction of these regulations, the various
County Administrative Boards (länsstyrelserna) issued regional rules.
The Board of the County of Västerbotten issued rules regarding hunting
on 13 August 1993 and regarding fishing on 16 November 1993. The Board
of the County of Jämtland issued its rules on 15 September and
22 December 1993 respectively. Finally, the rules of the Board of the
County of Norrbotten were issued on 2 November 1993 as regards hunting
and on 14 and 30 December 1993 as regards fishing.
The Saami villages in Västerbotten and Norrbotten appealed
against their County Administrative Boards' decisions on the licensing
of fishing, claiming that they were not in conformity with the
regulations of the National Board of Agriculture. That Board rejected
the appeal on 8 February 1994. The villages' further appeal was
rejected by the Government on 17 March 1994.
The Saami claim that they have immemorial rights including not
only rights of reindeer herding, hunting and fishing on certain land,
as confirmed by a 1993 amendment to the Reindeer Herding Act
(Rennäringslagen, 1971:437), but also ownership to the land and waters
above the cultivation line and in the reindeer grazing mountains. In
any event, they claim exclusive hunting and fishing rights in these
areas. Under the new licensing system they have allegedly no control
of where and to what extent hunting and fishing take place. Under the
previous system, hunting and fishing licences were granted by the
County Administrative Boards after consultation with the Saami villages
concerned. There was no obligation to grant licences even in cases
where the requirements under Section 32 of the Reindeer Herding Act
were met, as this Section only stated that licences "may" be granted.
Section 3 of the new Reindeer Herding Ordinance, however, provides that
licences "shall" be granted if these requirements are met.
The applicant Saami villages and some individual Saami thus
applied to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) for a
review of the decisions of the National Board of Agriculture and the
different County Administrative Boards under the Act on Judicial Review
of Certain Administrative Decisions (Lagen om rättsprövning av vissa
förvaltningsbeslut, 1988:205 - "the 1988 Act"), claiming that these
decisions were unlawful.
By decision of 22 June 1994, the Supreme Administrative Court
dismissed the application, finding that, under Section 1 of the
1988 Act, it could only review decisions in administrative matters
(förvaltningsärenden), i.e. decisions in individual cases. As the
challenged decisions had the character of norm decisions, they could
not be reviewed under the 1988 Act.
On 23 June 1994 the County Administrative Board of the County of
Jämtland introduced some further rules on hunting. The appeals lodged
by some Saami villages and individual Saami were rejected by the
National Board of Agriculture on 13 April 1995 and the Government on
16 November 1995.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Reindeer herding, hunting and fishing are fundamental elements
of the Saami culture. Reindeer herding is regulated by the Reindeer
Herding Act. A person of Saami extraction has, under the Act, a right
based on custom from time immemorial (urminnes hävd) to use land and
waters in designated areas of northern Sweden for reindeer herding.
To exercise this right, the Saami has to be a member of a Saami
village. The villages are registered by the County Administrative
Boards, which also allocate land for reindeer herding to each village.
According to Section 10 of the Act, a Saami village is responsible for
the herding within its area and represents its members in such matters.
General rules concerning hunting and fishing are to be found in
the Hunting Act (Jaktlagen, 1987:259) and the Fishing Act (Fiskelagen,
1993:787). The rights of hunting and fishing normally belong to the
respective property owners, who may sell hunting and fishing licences
to the public. With regard to the Saami's right of hunting and
fishing, reference is made to special provisions governing these
rights. These provisions are included in the Reindeer Herding Act and
the Reindeer Herding Ordinance.
According to Section 25 of the Reindeer Herding Act, a member of
a Saami village may, with certain restrictions, hunt and fish on the
land allocated to the village. This particular section is placed under
the heading "The Exercise of the Reindeer Herding Right", indicating
that the right to hunt and fish is part of the Saami's immemorial right
to herd reindeer. Persons who are not members of the Saami village
may, according to Section 32 of the Act, be granted licences to hunt
or fish. On State property above the cultivation line and in the
reindeer grazing mountains licences may not be granted if considerable
inconvenience for the reindeer herding or unacceptable infringements
of the village members' rights under Section 25 are caused. Licences
are, since 1886, granted by State authorities, at present the County
Administrative Boards. The licence fees are divided between the Saami
villages concerned and a special fund (Samefonden) the object of which
is to promote reindeer herding, Saami culture and Saami organisations.
The Saami villages and their members are not allowed to grant hunting
and fishing licences.
According to Section 3 of the Reindeer Herding Ordinance,
licences for small game hunting and fishing with hand-held tackle shall
be granted unless it causes significant inconvenience for the reindeer
herding or is prohibited by Section 32 of the Reindeer Herding Act.
Section 8 of the Ordinance provides that the National Board of
Agriculture shall issue more detailed regulations in this respect.
Under Section 2, the respective County Administrative Boards decide on
the granting of hunting and fishing licences.
Under Sections 2 and 3 of the regulations issued by the National
Board of Agriculture (Föreskrifter om upplåtelser av rätt till
småviltsjakt och fiske på statens mark ovanför odlingsgränsen och på
renbetesfjällen, SJVFS 1993:95), persons living within the
municipalities concerned shall be given annual licences for small game
hunting and others shall be given day licences. These sections do not
affect the right of the Saami to hunt free of charge on the land
allocated to their villages. Sections 4 and 5 contain certain
restrictions aimed at protecting reindeer herding. For example,
hunting may not take place within certain distances from settlements
and reindeer grazing areas. In respect of the licensing of fishing,
Sections 10-12 lay down certain restrictions, inter alia that licensing
may be prohibited in some areas if the Saami's needs of fishing waters
so require.
A decision by a County Administrative Board on licences, whether
it concerns general rules to be applied when granting licences or the
actual grant of an individual licence, may, under Section 36 of the
Reindeer Herding Ordinance, be appealed to the National Board of
Agriculture. That Board's decisions may be appealed to the Government,
in accordance with Section 5 of the Instruction for the National Board
of Agriculture (Förordning med instruktion för statens jordbruksverk,
1991:375) in conjunction with Section 30 of the Ordinance on Government
Agencies and Institutions (Verksförordningen, 1987:1100). Under
Section 22 of the Public Administration Act (Förvaltningslagen,
1986:223), a negative decision may be appealed by those who are
concerned by it. According to general legal principles, this means
that the decision must have effects on interests of the appellants
which are acknowledged by law. As the rights of the Saami village
members are to be taken into account when granting individual hunting
and fishing licences (cf. Section 32 of the Reindeer Herding Act and
Section 3 of the Reindeer Herding Ordinance), Saami villages have locus
standi to appeal against decisions to grant such licences.
Neither the Reindeer Herding Act nor the Reindeer Herding
Ordinance contains any provision providing for the possibility to
appeal to a court. However, under the 1988 Act, the Supreme
Administrative Court has jurisdiction in certain cases. The Act
applies to decisions which affect the personal status of private
citizens or their mutual personal or economic relations (cf. Chapter
8, Section 2 of the Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen)), as
well as decisions which affect the relations between private citizens
and the public administration and relate to obligations incumbent upon
private citizens or otherwise interfere with the personal or economic
affairs of private citizens (cf. Chapter 8, Section 3 of the Instrument
of Government). Section 1 of the 1988 Act provides as
follows:(Translation)
"At the request of a private party in such administrative
proceedings before the Government or an administrative
authority as pertain to any situation envisaged by Chapter
8, Sections 2 and 3, of the Instrument of Government, the
Supreme Administrative Court shall review whether the
decision in the case is contrary to any legal rule in a
manner indicated by the requesting party or otherwise
apparent from the circumstances of the case.
Judicial review may pertain only to such decisions as
- imply exercise of public authority in relation to a
private subject,
- cannot otherwise be reviewed by a court except following
a request for relief for substantive defects, and
- cannot otherwise be subject to review."
Moreover, under Chapter 13, Section 2 of the Code of Judicial
Procedure (Rättegångsbalken), a judgment declaring whether or not a
certain legal relationship exists may be requested in the ordinary
courts, provided that there is uncertainty as to the relationship and
this uncertainty is detrimental to the plaintiff. Under this
provision, a physical or legal person may bring proceedings in the
courts, claiming to have a "better right" than another person,
including the State, to certain property. The right claimed may be a
right of ownership or, for instance, a more limited right such as an
exclusive right to hunting and fishing.
In the so-called Taxed Mountains Case (Skattefjällsmålet, NJA
1981:1), five Saami villages of the county of Jämtland - the Saami
villages Frostviken Norra, Frostviken Mellersta, Rattevare, Hotagen and
Offerdal, all applicants before the Commission in the present case -
sought a declaratory judgment establishing that they had a "better
right" than the State to certain areas of Jämtland, the main part known
as the taxed mountains. They claimed that they had a right of
ownership or, alternatively, several types of limited rights, including
exclusive hunting and fishing rights, to the area in question. After
extensive investigations made by courts at three levels, the Supreme
Court (Högsta domstolen) rejected the villages' claims by judgment of
15 January 1981, although it acknowledged that the members of the Saami
villages had a strongly protected right of usage (bruksrätt).
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 7 December 1994 and registered
on 13 April 1995.
On 4 September 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48
para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.
The Government's written observations were submitted on
30 January 1996. The applicants replied on 21 March 1996.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants claim that the national regulations and regional
rules on small game hunting and fishing, decided in 1993 by the
National Board of Agriculture and the respective County Administrative
Boards, constitute an infringement of their exclusive rights to hunting
and fishing in the area in question and thus violate their rights under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicants further
claim that these decisions discriminate against the Saami, as, unlike
other property owners, they are not allowed to license hunting and
fishing on their property themselves. In this respect, they invoke
Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
2. Furthermore, under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants
complain that they have not been able to obtain a court determination
of their rights.
THE LAW
1. The applicants claim that the national regulations and regional
rules on small game hunting and fishing, decided in 1993 by the
National Board of Agriculture and the respective County Administrative
Boards, constitute an infringement of their exclusive rights to hunting
and fishing in the area in question and thus violate their rights under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention. The applicants
further claim that these decisions discriminate against the Saami, as,
unlike other property owners, they are not allowed to license hunting
and fishing on their property themselves. In this respect, they invoke
Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) reads 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."
Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides the following:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any
ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin,
association with a national authority, property, birth or
other status."
The respondent Government submit firstly that, although the
applicant Saami villages are to be regarded as non-governmental
organisations, they cannot claim to be victims of the alleged
violations within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention
as the hunting and fishing rights under the Reindeer Herding Act are
not afforded to the villages but to their members. The applicants'
victim status is excluded also on the ground that they found their
complaints on rights which they do not have. Their alleged ownership
rights to the land and waters in question or their - alternative -
exclusive rights to hunting and fishing in the area are not recognised
under Swedish law nor have they been substantiated before Swedish
courts.
The Government further submit that the Saami villages have chosen
an inadequate and certainly ineffective domestic remedy, as the
authorities and courts which deal with an appeal against or a legal
review of the decisions called into question are not entitled to take
into consideration any of the alleged Saami rights as long as a dispute
with regard to these rights has not been finally settled by a court of
law in due order. In the Government's view, all domestic remedies for
the purpose of establishing the existence of ownership rights or
exclusive rights to hunting and fishing must be exhausted before the
question whether any such right has been violated can be brought before
the Commission. With respect to the five applicant Saami villages
which were parties to the proceedings in the Taxed Mountains Case,
adjudicated by the Supreme Court in January 1981, the Government
contend that the period of six months for lodging an application with
the Commission, laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention,
has not been observed. As regards the remaining 34 applicant villages,
the Government maintain that they have failed to exhaust domestic
remedies as prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26), as they have never
taken proceedings against the Swedish State regarding the question
whether the Saami, rather than the State, have the rights claimed. As
is shown by the Taxed Mountains Case, such an action has been and is
still open to them. Moreover, the applicants applied to the Supreme
Administrative Court for a review under the 1988 Act of the decisions
of the National Board of Agriculture and the respective County
Administrative Boards. However, only the decisions of the County
Administrative Boards of Västerbotten and Norrbotten with respect to
fishing were appealed to the Government, and no review of the
Government's decision was requested. Thus, the applicants have failed
to exhaust domestic remedies also in this respect.
The applicants submit, with respect to the question of victim
status, that the Swedish Supreme Court has found that the Saami
villages, under Swedish law, both represent their members and receive
compensation for any infringements of the reindeer herding rights.
Moreover, the members have personal economic liability for the
obligations of the respective Saami village. The applicants further
maintain that the question is not whether they base their complaints
on rights which, according to the Government, they do not have but
rather that the Swedish State, by introducing the new system for
licensing hunting and fishing, tried to give itself rights which the
State did not previously claim.
In regard to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the
applicants assert that the legal remedies referred to by the State have
already been tried with respect to a sufficient number of decisions
with known results and are not, in any case, effective since the
authorities examining them are the very authorities that have issued
the challenged regulations. The Commission considers that the
exclusive hunting and fishing rights claimed by the applicant Saami
villages in the present case can be regarded as possessions within the
meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
The Commission notes that it is not disputed that the applicant
Saami villages are to be regarded as non-governmental organisations
within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. The
Commission further recalls that the villages, under the Reindeer
Herding Act, are responsible for the herding within their respective
areas and represent their members in such matters. Moreover, the
rights designated in that Act can be exercised by a Saami only as a
member of a Saami village. For these reasons, the Commission considers
that the applicant villages may, for the purposes of Article 25
(Art. 25), claim to be victims of the violations alleged under the
Convention and Protocol No. 1.
The other points raised by the Government under Article 25
(Art. 25) of the Convention touch upon the question whether the
domestic remedies available to the applicants have been exhausted, i.e.
whether the applicants have complied with the requirements under
Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention and will therefore be considered
below.
The Commission recalls that, in the present case, the applicants
are challenging the regulations on the licensing of hunting and fishing
issued, on the basis of the 1993 Reindeer Herding Ordinance, by the
National Board of Agriculture on 30 July 1993 and the regional rules
on these matters issued by the respective County Administrative Boards
between August and December 1993. The Saami villages of Västerbotten
and Norrbotten appealed to the National Board of Agriculture and the
Government against their County Administrative Boards' decisions
regarding fishing, claiming that they were not in conformity with the
regulations issued by the National Board of Agriculture. However, with
respect to the other regional decisions challenged before the
Commission, no appeal was made.
The applicants maintain that they did not have an effective
domestic remedy, as the appeal authorities, i.e. the National Board of
Agriculture and the Government, had issued the regulations challenged
before the Commission. The Commission notes, however, that the
Government had not issued the challenged regulations. It is true that
the Government had enacted the Reindeer Herding Ordinance on the basis
of which the regulations of the National Board of Agriculture were
issued. This does not mean, however, that the Government was unable
independently to determine whether the decisions taken by the County
Administrative Boards were in conformity with the said regulations or
with the Ordinance itself (cf. Eur. Court HR, Silver and Others v. the
United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 43, para.
116). Thus, in so far as the applicants complain about this alleged
lack of conformity, they had an effective domestic remedy which was
only partially exhausted.
It appears, however, that the question as to whether the regional
rules decided by the County Administrative Boards conform with superior
norms is not the real subject-matter of the applicants' complaints to
the Commission. Instead, the applicants consider that the new hunting
and fishing system introduced in 1993 was harmful to Saami interests
and violated their exclusive hunting and fishing rights in the areas
concerned.
If the Saami villages were to be considered to have such
exclusive hunting and fishing rights as they claim, these rights might
have been infringed first, in a more general way, as a result of the
introduction in 1993 of the new system for licensing hunting and
fishing in that the Reindeer Herding Ordinance and the regulations and
regional rules issued under that system could be considered to have
deprived the Saami of their exclusive rights, and secondly, in a more
concrete manner, by the individual decisions to grant licences to hunt
or fish in the areas concerned.
It thus appears that the central issue is whether the Saami
villages were holders of exclusive hunting and fishing rights, and the
question arises whether they had any remedy in this respect before the
Swedish courts.
The Commission notes that the existence of any such exclusive
rights is in dispute between the parties. No exclusive rights are
provided for in the applicable legislation, but the Saami villages base
their claims on various historical facts of considerable complexity.
The Commission notes that related issues were examined in the
Taxed Mountains Case where the ordinary courts, in the last resort the
Supreme Court, decided on the claims of five Saami villages to have a
"better right" than the State to certain areas in Jämtland. Similarly,
the Swedish courts would also appear to be competent to give a
declaratory judgment on whether or not the Saami villages are holders
under Swedish law of exclusive hunting and fishing rights in the areas
concerned in the present case.
It is true that five of the applicants, i.e. the Saami villages
Frostviken Norra, Frostviken Mellersta, Rattevare, Hotagen and
Offerdal, were also parties to the Taxed Mountains Case and that the
Supreme Court's judgment in that case deals to some extent with their
hunting and fishing rights. However, in so far as that judgment could
be considered to have determined the claim of those five applicant
villages to exclusive hunting and fishing rights, the Commission notes
that the present application has not been brought before the Commission
within six months from that judgment as required by Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention.
The Commission adds that, in regard to individual decisions by
the County Administrative Boards to grant hunting and fishing licences,
the Saami villages may lodge appeals with the National Board of
Agriculture and the Government. It would appear, furthermore, that the
Government's decisions on such individual matters, implying the
exercise of public authority in relation to private subjects, could be
reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court under the 1988 Act. In
such proceedings, it would be determined whether the decisions to grant
individual licences are contrary to any legal rule. The applicants have
not shown that they have appealed against any such individual decision.
Having regard to the above, the Commission finds that the
applicants have not complied with the conditions laid down in Article
26 (Art. 26) of the Convention and that this part of the application
is inadmissible under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
2. The applicants also complain that they have not been able to
obtain a court determination of their rights. They invoke Article 6
(Art. 6) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as
follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone
is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ..."
In addition to the objections referred to under 1 above, the
Government submit that the applicants' complaints are manifestly ill-
founded. In so far as the complaints are founded on the assertion that
the applicants' exclusive rights to hunting and fishing have been
violated, the Government acknowledge that the dispute concerns their
civil rights and that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is
applicable. The Government maintain, however, that proceedings brought
under Chapter 13, Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, in which
it would be determined whether the Saami have the alleged rights, would
clearly satisfy the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6). Should a Saami
village or an individual Saami be successful in such proceedings, the
1993 provisions on hunting and fishing would be unconstitutional and
could not be applied by courts and public authorities.
In so far as the applicants' complaints are founded on their
rights to hunting and fishing under the Reindeer Herding Act, the
Government submit that the regulations introduced in 1993 have not
affected these rights to the detriment of the Saami. The power to
control the conditions for hunting and fishing rests with the State,
as being the land owner, and the introduction of the new regulations
was not decisive for the dispute regarding Saami rights as brought
before the Commission in the present case. In the Government's view,
the dispute concerning the new regulations does not, therefore, concern
the applicants' civil rights. Thus, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention does not apply to this dispute. Should the Commission find
that Article 6 (Art. 6) does apply to this dispute, the Government
contend that it does not give a right to challenge a law or other
regulations issued in accordance with the law, in the present case the
Reindeer Herding Ordinance and the normative rules and regulations
founded on that Ordinance.
The applicants submit that there is no reason for them to
institute proceedings against the Swedish State, as it is the State,
and not the Saami villages, that claims that both the State and the
Saami have hunting and fishing rights in the relevant region.
Furthermore, in view of the fact that appeals are to be made to the
authorities which have issued the challenged regulations, the Saami
villages have already done what can be done.
The Commission notes that the dispute in the present case
concerns the applicants' rights to hunt and fish in certain areas.
These rights are "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para.
1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. Thus, this provision is applicable to
the present complaint.
The Commission recalls that the Saami villages may bring
proceedings against the State in the ordinary courts, requesting these
courts to declare that the Saami, rather than the State, have the
rights which they claim. Furthermore, the villages may appeal to the
Government against the County Administrative Boards' individual
decisions to grant hunting and fishing licences and it would appear
that the Government's decisions on such matters could be reviewed by
the Supreme Administrative Court under the 1988 Act. The Commission
further recalls its conclusion under 1 above that these remedies
require to be exhausted according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention.
Considering that the ordinary courts, in the final resort the
Supreme Court, as well as the Supreme Administrative Court are
undoubtedly "tribunals" within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention, the Commission finds that the applicants had access to
courts for the determination of their civil rights.
It follows that this part of 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.
H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
of the Commission of the Commission
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy