CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s7165466B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s56524E92 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA3DBC37D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sFF60FFB { width:84.3%; margin-left:28.6pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s40F8AC1B { width:9.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s47B0A97F { width:25.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1D180F61 { width:24.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFD4D17A8 { width:22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s30C5935A { width:18.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB667CC41 { width:9.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB2BDF54F { width:25.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4043161D { width:24.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6230E231 { width:22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CE0F6D2 { width:18.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 8 September 2025 SECOND SECTION Application no. 34062/24 Pentti Olavi ALASALMI and Others against Finland lodged on 13 November 2024 communicated on 20 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns excessive length of administrative law proceedings. The applicants are professional fishermen who claim that they could no longer fish in a lake because the lake was contaminated by sewage water emanating from mining activities. On 8 July 2020 their request for compensation was dismissed without examining the merits by a regional State Administrative Agency. On 20 July 2020 the applicants appealed against that decision, subsequently requesting also compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings. On 30 December 2022 the Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ appeal as well as their claim for compensation for excessive length of the court proceedings, considering that the length of two years and five months was not excessive vis-a-vis the extent and complexity of the case. On 6 September 2024 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicants leave to appeal. The applicants complain, invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the length of their administrative law proceedings.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, was the length of the administrative law proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §   209, 27   June 2017)?     APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Pentti Olavi ALASALMI 1956 Finnish Kajaani 2. Mikko Olavi ALASALMI 1984 Finnish Kajaani 3. Tuula Senja PULKKINEN 1961 Finnish Kajaani