CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 3 mars 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 22025/93                       by Arto KETO-TOKOI and Others                       against Finland         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 March 1997, the following members being present:              Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  A. PERENIC                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              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 26 May 1993 by Arto KETO-TOKOI and Others against Finland and registered on 9 June 1993 under file No. 22025/93;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to :   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       15 January 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicants on 15 March 1996 and 17 February 1997;   -      the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 3 March 1997;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The names and particulars of the applicants are set out in the Annex. They are represented by Ms. Pirjo-Riitta Oinaala, lawyer of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation ("Suomen luonnon- suojeluliitto r.y. - Finlands naturskyddsförbund r.f.") and Mr Juhani Kortteinen, a legal researcher at the University of Helsinki.   A.     Particular circumstances of the case         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         The applicants are owners of properties in the municipality of Pelkosenniemi near the river Vuotos in the County of Lapland in northern Finland.         After an informal meeting on 15 September 1982 the Government made known that an artificial lake and related facilities such as a hydro-electric power station should not be constructed in the Vuotos area. Plans for such a lake had been under discussion since the 1960's.         It appears that in 1986 the Ministry for Trade and Industry again began to plan the lake. In the summer of 1991 the limited liability company Kemijoki Oy began an extensive survey of the Vuotos area. The company's purpose is to own and manage hydro-electric power stations and lines and to produce electricity for its shareholders. The Finnish State owns roughly 78 per cent of the shares.         The surveying entailed, among other measures, the felling of trees with a view to creating three 70-126 metres long and 2 metres wide openings in the forest on the applicants' properties. Three such openings were created on each property. Excavation took place with the help of explosives. The surveyed area measured some 18 kilometres in length. The surveying affected between 0.011 and 0.019 hectares of the applicants' respective properties.         The main part of the surveyed area belonged to Kemijoki Oy itself. As for the remainder, the company tried to obtain the property owners' consent to the surveying. According to the Government, the applicants expressed such consent and an agreement was reached concerning the compensation to be paid to them. According to the applicants, they never consented to the measures taken on their properties.         On 2 September 1991 the Ministry for Trade and Industry (kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriö, handels- och industriministeriet) found that the Vuotos area did not contain any mineral resources of such an amount as to render their exploitation profitable. This finding was apparently based on surveying carried out in the late 1980's.         In a notification published in the regional daily "Koillis-Lappi" on 13 September 1991 Kemijoki Oy stated that it would commence "supplementary" geological surveying on 16 September 1991.         On 30 October 1991 Kemijoki Oy requested permission to conduct a survey of the Vuotos area in order to determine the layout of the artificial lake and the location of a pump station and power lines. The request apparently concerned some 240 km² intended to be submerged in the lake. A permit was granted by the County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) of Lapland on 11 November 1991 in pursuance of the 1977 Act on Compulsory Acquisition of Real Property and Particular Rights (laki kiinteän omaisuuden ja erityisten oikeuksien lunastuksesta, lag om inlösen av fast egendom och särskilda rättigheter 603/1977; "the 1977 Act"). The survey was to be concluded by the end of 1993 and was to be conducted without causing unnecessary damage and harm. Any damage or harm was to be repaired or compensated. Provided their addresses were known the company was ordered to notify all property owners (and holders of any related right) individually of the surveying at least seven days before commencing it. Otherwise the notification was to be of a general character, which normally entails that it is posted on the municipal notice board. No property owner or holder of a related right was heard by the County Administrative Board.         In 1991 the applicants received the following sums from the company in compensation for damage resulting from the survey of their properties preceding the County Administrative Board's decision:         Mr Keto-Tokoi:              15.000,00 FIM       Mr and Mrs Poikela:          4.000,50 FIM       Ms Tannervo:                 5.000,00 FIM       Ms Vesanen:                  3.030,00 FIM         According to the applicants, these payments were based on an agreement according to which the company undertook not to carry out any further surveying of their properties.         On 7 January 1992 the company, relying on section 7 of the 1965 Mining Act (kaivoslaki, gruvlag 503/1965), reserved the right to lodge mining claims concerning minerals potentially to be exploited in the area affected by the permit issued on 11 November 1991.         In a notification published in "Koillis-Lappi" on 25 March 1992 the company, referring to the permission granted on 11 November 1991, stated its intention to "commence" the survey. According to the applicants, they did not at that time receive knowledge of the intended surveying.         On 13 May 1992 the State Institute for Economic Research (Valtion taloudellinen tutkimuskeskus, Statens ekonomiska forskningsanstalt) published a survey of the financial implications of the lake project. The survey had been ordered by the Government and concluded, in essence, that the project would not be profitable.         On 17 June 1992 the Government, sitting in its capacity as Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet), instructed the State representatives at Kemijoki Oy's shareholders' meeting not to object to an intended request for permission to construct an artificial lake and a power station in the Vuotos area. The State representatives were also instructed to permit the company to take any other measures deemed necessary for the realisation of the project.         The construction of the artificial lake and related facilities requires permission by the Water Court of Northern Finland (Pohjois- Suomen vesioikeus, Norra Finlands vattendomstol) in pursuance of the 1961 Water Act (vesilaki, vattenlag 264/1961). Such a permit was requested by Kemijoki Oy on 25 September 1992 and the proceedings are still pending. An appeal lies with the Water Court of Appeal (vesiylioikeus, vattenöverdomstolen) following which the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltnings- domstolen) may grant leave to appeal.       In the proceedings before the Water Court the company has also requested permission to take various preparatory measures (such as extraction with a view to creating dams). Permission may be granted only if and when the actual construction permit is issued and would enable partial commencement of the lake project before such a permit might acquire legal force (chapter 2, section 26 of the Water Act).         On 3 December 1992 Ms Tannervo acknowledged receipt of a notification by Kemijoki Oy as follows:         (translation from Finnish)         "Kemijoki Oy         RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATION         I have received a notification delivered by representatives       of Kemijoki Oy concerning (the) surveying to be carried out       in the area of the planned artificial lake of Vuotos.       ..."         The receipt was countersigned by a representative of Kemijoki Oy. According to the Government, all applicants received, on 3 or 4 December 1992, "a personal and reasonable notice" of the County Administrative Board's decision of 11 November 1991 with a notice of appeal annexed thereto.         The applicants, however, state that in December 1992 Mr Keto- Tokoi, Ms Tannervo and Ms Vesanen received only informal knowledge of the Board's decision, while Mr and Mrs Poikela were informed thereof in January 1993. Having allegedly been misled by the terms of the document notified to her on 3 December 1992, Ms Tannervo signed it, although it did not correspond to a formal notification pursuant to domestic law. Most likely it contained neither the permit itself nor a formal notice of appeal.         On 7 January 1993 the company requested the Ministry for Trade and Industry to grant it five claims (valtaus, inmutning) concerning minerals potentially to be exploited in certain areas within the municipalities of Pelkosenniemi and Savukoski, including the applicants' properties. The surface claimed totalled some 4,5 km².         On 5 February 1993 the applicants lodged a complaint with the police concerning the measures taken on their properties by Kemijoki Oy. On 11 February 1993 they requested the Supreme Administrative Court to stay enforcement of and annul (purkaa, återbryta) the County Administrative Board's decision of 11 November 1991. They essentially argued that they had neither been heard by the Board nor properly notified of the intended surveying. Given that they had not been formally notified of the Board's decision, they had been unable to lodge an ordinary appeal. They also argued that the Board's decision had been based on a manifestly wrong application of domestic law. The 1982 Act on Administrative Procedure (hallintomenettelylaki, lag 598/1982 om förvaltningsförfarande) had warranted the hearing of the applicants and the essence of the matter should rather have been examined by the Water Court in pursuance of the Water Act.         By decisions of 14 April 1993 the Ministry for Trade and Industry granted the mining claims requested by the company. The claims authorise it to take various geological surveying measures with a view to verifying the extent of any mineral findings.         The applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, arguing, in essence, that the claims concerned mainly those parts of the Vuotos area upon which the company intended to construct the artificial lake and related facilities. In addition, the company's statutes did not permit it to prospect and make use of mineral findings. The claims allegedly enabled the company to circumvent the requirements of the Water Act, according to which even preparatory measures with a view to establishing an artificial lake required permission by the competent water court. The applicants finally recalled the previous geological survey which had shown that the area contained an insufficient amount of minerals for any exploitation to be profitable. The company was therefore not in need of the mining claims.         In a newspaper interview published on 23 April 1993 a representative of Kemijoki Oy stated that the company did not expect any significant mineral findings in the Vuotos area. It had nevertheless requested mining claims in the light of certain indications of valuable minerals. The representative furthermore acknowledged that the company might not be able to start exploiting possible findings in its own name.         On 24 November 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicants' annulment request of 11 February 1993 after an examination of its merits. It considered that the County Administrative Board had been competent to grant the surveying permit pursuant to the 1977 Act. Such a permit concerned merely preparatory measures. The 1977 Act required that a property owner be notified of the commencement of the survey. It also stipulated how any damage caused by a survey should be compensated. In these circumstances the granting of the permit had not presupposed the hearing of parties within the meaning of the 1982 Act on Administrative Procedure (such as the applicants). No procedural error of sufficient significance had therefore been made. Nor did the Supreme Administrative Court find any other grounds for annulling the County Administrative Board's decision.         In response to the applicants' complaint of 5 February 1993 the Public Prosecutor of Pelkosenniemi, on 17 February 1994, found that Kemijoki Oy had, in the autumn of 1991 and in December 1992, accidentally surveyed Ms Vesanen's and Mr Keto-Tokoi's properties. The survey had entailed, inter alia, felling of trees and the use of explosives. In the police investigation a company representative had stated that, on 3 December 1992, all applicants had been formally notified of the permission granted on 11 November 1991 but had refused to acknowledge receipt thereof in writing. The Prosecutor decided not to press charges, considering that no criminal offence had been committed.         In 1994 the applicants received the following compensation from the company for the damage resulting from the survey of their properties after the County Administrative Board's decision of 11 November 1991:         Mr Keto-Tokoi:                615,40 FIM       Mr and Mrs Poikela:         1.329,00 FIM       Ms Tannervo:                1.104,00 FIM       Ms Vesanen:                 1.774,00 FIM         Part of the compensation was later returned to the company which then deposited it on the County Administrative Board's account in accordance with domestic law.         On 30 August 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicants' appeal against the Ministry's decisions of 14 April 1993. The Court noted that the 1965 Mining Act exhaustively enumerated the impediments to granting claims. Since no such impediment had been shown to exist, the Ministry had been under an obligation to grant the claims.         In an agreement with the company dated 3 July 1995 Mr and Mrs Poikela declared having received 4.000 and 1.329 FIM in compensation for all damage caused by the surveying of their property. They also renounced any further claim in respect of the surveying related to the lake project and were afforded a right to collect fallen trees from certain parts of the company's property.         According to the Government, Kemijoki Oy has paid the applicants annual compensation pursuant to the Mining Act for the existence of the mining claims. Part of the money has been deposited on the County Administrative Board's account following certain applicants' refusal to accept the payments.         According to the applicants, they have not received any compensation for "the mining".   B.     Relevant domestic law and practice         Before proceedings are instituted for the purpose of requesting a right of compulsory acquisition of real property a permission to carry out a geological survey of the property in question may be requested. A successful applicant shall notify every property owner and holder of a right of usufruct individually of the commencement of the survey, if their addresses are known. Otherwise a public notice will suffice. Notification shall take place at the latest seven days before the commencement of the survey. The surveying permission must be presented on request (sections 84-85 of the 1977 Act).         As in force at the relevant time the 1977 Act contained no provision requiring that the property owners and others affected by the requested surveying should be heard in advance and/or be notified of the County Administrative Board's decision to grant permission to this effect. According to the 1982 Act on Administrative Procedure, a party within the meaning of that Act shall be given an opportunity to be heard in regard to submissions by others provided this material could influence the outcome of the matter. If, for instance, previously enacted legislation contains provisions which deviate from those in the 1982 Act, that legislation shall be applied (sections 2 and 15).         As from 1 September 1996 the 1977 Act stipulates that only absolutely necessary measures shall be taken on the basis of a surveying permission. If necessary, the County Administrative Board shall set out in detail the permitted measures as well as any restrictions. In certain cases a property owner or a holder of a related right shall now be notified both of a request for permission and of a decision to grant one (section 84, as amended by Act no. 476/96).         According to the 1977 Act, as in force prior to 1 September 1996, compensation for damage caused by the surveying of a property was, if no settlement had been reached, to be requested in court proceedings instituted within a year from the expiry of the surveying permit. If the compulsory acquisition of a surveyed property had been permitted, compensation for the surveying was to be claimed in the proceedings pertaining to the actual acquisition (section 86, subsection 3 of the 1977 Act). As from 1 September 1996 requests for compensation shall no longer be examined by civil courts but by an ad hoc commission (section 86, as amended by Act no. 476/96).         According to the 1950 Act on the Right of Appeal in Administrative Matters (laki muutoksenhausta hallintoasioissa, lag om ändringssökande i förvaltningsärenden 154/1950), an appeal could be lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court against a decision of, for instance, a County Administrative Board provided the right of appeal has not been removed or restricted by law. An appeal was to be lodged within thirty days from the day when the appellant was notified of the decision at issue (sections 2, 4 and 8). In its decision No. 1970 II 116 the Supreme Administrative Court considered that this period began only on the day when the appeal was lodged, since the appellant had not been formally notified of the appealed decision.         According to the 1966 Act on Extraordinary Remedies against Administrative Decisions (laki ylimääräisestä muutoksenhausta hallintoasioissa, lag om extraordinärt ändringssökande i förvaltningsärenden 200/1966), annulment of an administrative decision which had acquired legal force could be requested with reference to, inter alia, an alleged procedural error which might have had a significant influence on the decision (section 2). Annulment could not take place unless the decision at issue violated the right of an individual or an annulment was in the public interest. An annulment request could not be examined, if certain other remedies mentioned in the Act were still available (section 6). In its decision No. 1979 II 628 the Supreme Administrative Court declined to examine a request for annulment, since the time-limit for lodging an ordinary appeal had not yet expired.         The 1950 Act and the 1966 Act have been repealed by the 1996 Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (hallintolainkäyttölaki, förvaltningsprocesslag 586/1996) which entered into force on 1 December 1996.         If a request for a mining claim meets the requirements set out in sections 8 and 10 of the Mining Act and provided it is not to be rejected on any of the grounds enumerated in section 6, the claim shall be granted. The right to seek such a claim may be reserved for one year (section 7). A claim entitles the holder to carry out geological surveys and test exploitation (sections 4 and 12). The holder of the claim shall pay the affected property owners compensation (fixed by Decree) either per annum or more frequently. Any damage or harm caused to the property owner by measures taken on the basis of a mining claim must be fully compensated (section 15). Further compensation shall be paid to the property owner both for a right of extraction and the actual extraction of minerals (sections 44-45). Should payment of any such   compensation not occur, the property owner may request that the mining claim or right of extraction be forfeited (section 64). Compensation for any unforeseen damage or harm caused by actual extraction may be claimed in civil proceedings (section 46).     COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicants complain that they were denied a fair hearing in the proceedings resulting in the granting of the surveying permit to Kemijoki Oy. Although their addresses were known, they were neither heard in respect of the company's request nor properly notified of the County Administrative Board's decision. The non-hearing of the applicants allegedly also discriminated against them. They invoke Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention.   2.     The applicants also complain that the measures which the company has taken on their properties have violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. These activities commenced already before the surveying permit had been granted. The Board's decision to grant such a permit did not pursue any general interest, since the Government's own investigations had already shown that the artificial lake project would not be profitable. The mining claims granted to the company concern land which it envisages to submerge rather than use for mining purposes. These claims therefore restrict the applicants' property rights for purposes not allowed by the Convention. The measures taken by the company have been disproportionate to any general interest pursued, since they have limited the applicants' possibility of pursuing agricultural and forestry activities. The company is in effect pursuing its aim to construct the artificial lake and related facilities, although no permit to this effect has been granted so far. The conduct of the authorities seen as a whole has been and continues to be aimed at depriving the applicants of their right peacefully to enjoy their possessions.         The applicants furthermore complain that the surveying and related measures have also violated their right to respect for their private life and homes. Notably, the possibility that their properties may be submerged in the lake has caused them mental distress.         The applicants also complain that they have had no effective remedy at their disposal against the above-mentioned violations.         The applicants invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as well as Articles 8, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 26 May 1993 and registered on 9 June 1993.         On 18 October 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 15 January 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicants replied on 15 March 1996, also after an extension of the time-limit.         On 5 March 1996 the Commission granted the applicants legal aid.         On 15 October 1996 the plenary Commission ordered the transfer of the application to itself. On 24 October 1996 it decided to hold a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.         In February 1997 the Commission was informed that the applicant Tauno Poikela had died and that his widow, Mrs. Helmi Poikela, wished to take over the application on his behalf.         The Commission's hearing was held on 3 March 1997, the parties being represented as follows:The Government   Mr Holger Rotkirch           Director-General for Legal Affairs,                             Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Legal                             Department, Agent   Mr Arto Kosonen              Head of Unit, Ministry for Foreign                             Affairs, Legal Department, Co-Agent   Mr Erkki Kourula             Deputy Director-General for Legal Affairs,                             Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Adviser   Mr Seppo Oikarinen           Chief Inspector, Ministry of Trade and                             Industry, Adviser   Mrs Eija Siitari-Vanne       Legislative Counsellor, Ministry of                             Justice, Adviser   The applicants   Ms. Pirjo-Riitta Oinaala     Lawyer of the Finnish Association for                             Nature Conservation ("Suomen luonnon-                             suojeluliitto r.y. - Finlands naturskydds-                             förbund r.f.")   Mr Juhani Kortteinen         LL.M., Researcher, University of Helsinki,                             Faculty of Law     THE LAW   1.     The Commission first notes that the applicant Tauno Poikela has died in the course of the Commission proceedings and that his widow, the applicant Helmi Poikela, has indicated that she wishes to pursue the application also on his behalf.         Close relatives of a deceased applicant are in principle entitled to take his or her place in the proceedings before the Convention organs (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Scherer v. Switzerland judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no. 287, pp. 14-15, paras. 31-32 with further references). In the circumstances of the present case the Commission therefore accepts that Mrs. Poikela may pursue the application as regards Mr Poikela.   2.     The applicants complain that they were denied a fair hearing in the proceedings resulting in the granting of the surveying permit to Kemijoki Oy. Although their addresses were known, they were neither heard in respect of the company's request nor properly notified of the County Administrative Board's decision. The non-hearing of the applicants allegedly also discriminated against them. They invoke Articles 6 and 14 (Art. 6, 14) of the Convention.         Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:         "1.   In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone       is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an       independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ..."         Article 14 (Art. 14) reads as follows:         "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 minority, property, birth or       other status."         The Government essentially submit that the applicants have failed to exhaust domestic remedies, since they have not lodged an ordinary appeal against the County Administrative Board's decision of 11 November 1991. Their unequivocal request for an annulment of that decision indicates that they accepted that the time-limit for lodging an ordinary appeal had expired. Given that the Supreme Administrative Court accepted that the applicants had standing to lodge the annulment request, it would also have examined an ordinary appeal lodged by them. Such an appeal might also have been given suspensive effect. The applicants could still lodge an ordinary appeal, arguing that for want of formal notification of the Board's decision it is not belated.         In the alternative, the Government consider the complaint to be manifestly ill-founded. Nothing would have prevented the applicants from consulting the courts' case file and lodging an ordinary appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court so as to obtain an examination of all arguments. Such an examination would have met the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. The applicants were not discriminated against, since no property owner was individually notified of the company's request to the County Administrative Board.         The applicants submit that, since none of them were formally notified of the County Administrative Board's decision, they were unable to lodge an ordinary appeal against it. The fact that the Supreme Administrative Court examined their annulment request precisely as such an extraordinary remedy shows that in its view there was no longer any ordinary remedy available to them. At any rate, the effectiveness of an ordinary appeal could be questioned, given that part of the surveying had already been carried out at the time when that remedy could have been tried.   (i)    In the Commission's view the question principally arising in the context of this complaint is whether the applicants have had access to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention for the purpose of challenging the County Administrative Board's decision to issue Kemijoki Oy with a surveying permit.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does not oblige the Contracting States to submit disputes over civil rights to a procedure which at each stage meets the requirements of that provision, provided it eventually may be determined by a body which does (cf., e.g., Eur. Court HR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1984, Series A no. 43, pp. 22-23, para. 51). It is sufficient that, in the determination of "civil rights and obligations", decisions taken by administrative authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that provision be subject to subsequent control by an independent judicial body with sufficient jurisdiction and which itself provides the safeguards required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, p. 17, para. 28).          The Commission notes that, on 11 February 1993, the applicants requested the Supreme Administrative Court to annul the County Administrative Board's decision of 11 November 1991. It is thus clear that they had become aware of that decision at the latest in February 1993, whatever the exact date and manner of the communication thereof. In spite of this the applicants have never lodged an ordinary appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court with reference to the alleged failure by Kemijoki Oy formally to notify them of the Board's decision. However, in the absence of such a notification an ordinary appeal would not, according to the Supreme Administrative Court's practice, be belated. There is no indication that the Supreme Administrative Court's examination of an ordinary appeal would have failed to meet the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         In these circumstances the Commission does not find that the applicants have been denied access to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention for the purposes of challenging the County Administrative Board's decision. Accordingly, there is no indication of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) in this particular case.   (ii)   In the light of the foregoing the Commission does not find any indication of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 (Art. 14+6).         It follows that the whole of this complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.     The applicants also complain that the measures which Kemijoki Oy has taken on their properties have violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The interference with their property rights has been excessive and is in effect pursuing the company's aim to construct the artificial lake and related facilities, although no permit to this effect has been granted so far. The mining claims granted to the company have restricted their rights for purposes not allowed by the Convention. The conduct of the authorities seen as a whole has been and continues to be aimed at completely depriving the applicants of their right peacefully to enjoy their possessions. The measures have also violated the applicants' right to respect for their private life and homes. Finally, the applicants have not had any effective remedy at their disposal against the above-mentioned violations. The applicants invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) as well as Articles 8, 13, 17 and 18 (Art. 8, 13, 17, 18) of the Convention.         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 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention reads, insofar as relevant, as follows:           "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private ...       life, his home ...         2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority       with the exercise of this right except such as is in       accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic       society in the interests of national security, public       safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the       prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of       health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and       freedoms of others."         Article 13 (Art. 13) reads as follows:         "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this       Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy       before a national authority notwithstanding that the       violation has been committed by persons acting in an       official capacity."         Article 17 (Art. 17) reads as follows:         "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying       for any State, group or person any right to engage in any       activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any       of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their       limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the       Convention."         Article 18 (Art. 18) reads as follows:         "The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the       said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any       purpose other than those for which they have been       prescribed."         The Government submit that, since the State's ownership of Kemijoki Oy is not coupled with any specific Government control, the respondent State cannot be held directly responsible for Kemijoki Oy's acts. At the very least the State cannot assume responsibility for measures which have not been sanctioned by the authorities by virtue of permits.         The Government furthermore submit that the applicants cannot claim to be "victims" within the meaning of Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), considering that they have been fully compensated for the damage and inconvenience caused by the surveying of their properties. Kemijoki Oy has also been paying them annual compensation for its mining claims. Whenever the applicants have refused to accept the company's payments, the money has been deposited pursuant to domestic law.         Alternatively, the Government argue that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies, since they failed to seize an ordinary court with a claim pursuant to section 86, subsection 3 of the 1977 Act for further compensation for the surveying. They also failed to complain to the County Prosecutor against the local prosecutor's decision not to bring charges for the surveying preceding the permit granted in 1991. The applicants themselves could also have brought criminal proceedings against those responsible for that surveying. Finally, the applicants could have sought to have the company's mining claims forfeited.         As for the surveying in 1991, the Government furthermore submit that the complaint has been lodged belatedly, given that this activity ended more than six months before the complaint was introduced.         In the further alternative, the Government consider the complaint to be manifestly ill-founded. The interference with the applicants' property rights resulting from the surveying permit and the mining claims granted to the company was clearly based on domestic law. Although opinions may vary as to the profitability of the lake project, the measures taken have pursued a general interest within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). The surveying permission was in force for about a year only. No measures have yet been taken on the applicants' properties on the basis of the mining claims. With these claims the company is securing its right to extract any valuable minerals which might be discovered in connection with the possible construction of the hydro-electric power station. The applicants' right to make use of their properties has not been hampered and the value of the properties has not been affected. The applicants have thus not been made to carry an individual and excessive burden and a fair balance has been struck between the conflicting general and individual interests. As for the procedural guarantee inherent in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), the Government consider that the domestic proceedings have afforded the applicants a reasonable opportunity to put their case to the relevant authorities.         Insofar as the applicants invoke Articles 8, 13, 17 and 18 (Art. 8, 13, 17, 18) of the Convention, the Government consider that the complaint has remained unsubstantiated. In any case, no separate issue arises under Article 8 or 13 (Art. 8, 13).         The applicants contend that the measures taken by Kemijoki Oy are imputable to the respondent State, as the company is in effect managed by the State. As regards their status as "victims" within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25), they stress that the 1991 compensation was accepted on condition that the company would no longer conduct surveys of their properties. The compensation does not correspond to the normal level and could not afford them sufficient redress. The final agreement signed by Mr and Mrs Poikela concerns merely the damage resulting from the surveying and does not affect their status as "victims" in any other respect.         At the Commission's hearing the applicants accepted that the company's activities on their properties have not exceeded the terms of either the surveying permit or the mining claims. They also conceded that the measures so far taken on their properties could scarcely be said to have hampered their use of their properties for their livelihood. They contended, however, that on the basis of the mining claims Kemijoki Oy may take extensive measures on their properties at any time in the future. The mining claims thus constitute a de jure limitation of the applicants' property rights which renders their ownership precarious.         As regards Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention, the applicants consider that the company's failure to begin any prospecting for minerals on their property shows that the mining claims are aimed solely at enabling it to prepare the foundations of the artificial lake before any permit to that effect has been granted under the Water Act.         For the reasons below, the Commission does not find it necessary to determine either the extent of the respondent State's responsibility for the acts complained of or the respective applicants' status as "victims" within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. Nor is it necessary to determine, for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26), whether the domestic remedies have been exhausted as regards all aspects of this complaint and whether all aspects have been raised within the six months' period.   (i)    The Commission recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) comprises three distinct rules. The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property. The second rule, contained in the second sen