CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 June 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2381/22 SAARIVUOMA SAMEBY against Norway lodged on 17 December 2021 communicated on 24 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a Swedish Sami community ( siida ), registered as an organisation in Sweden, which, since a convention between Norway and Sweden relating to cross-border reindeer herding had been entered into and legislation implementing that convention had first been enacted in 1972 – and in spite of later amendments to the regulatory framework – had been excluded from reindeer herding in two specific areas in Norway. In 2018 the applicant community instituted proceedings against, inter alia , the Norwegian State. On 30 June 2021 a majority of the Supreme Court found that the exclusion ran contrary to the community’s private-law rights established by consuetude and gave a declaratory judgment holding that the community had the right to engage in reindeer husbandry in the two areas in dispute, notwithstanding the provisions of domestic law. By majority decision the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant community’s claim for compensation in relation to the exclusion that had taken place throughout the period in question. The application is lodged with the Court by the applicant community’s chairperson on behalf of the community. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention and Article 14 of the Convention taken together with the former provision, the applicant community complains about the situation that persisted from 1972 up to the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2021 and the fact that no compensation was awarded. The applicant community also maintains that it was discriminated against in its status as a Swedish reindeer-herding community, to which less advantageous rules allegedly applied than had they been Norwegian reindeer herders. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the applicant community’s arguments, including that the Supreme Court did not award any compensation: has there been a violation of any rights belonging to it under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   2.     In view of the applicant community’s allegation that Norwegian reindeer herders would, in contrast to those from Sweden, have had their private-law-based herding rights ensured – or compensation awarded if not: has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?