CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   269 30.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Handölsdalen Sami Village and Others v. Sweden (application no. 39013/04)   PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING RIGHT OF SWEDISH SAMI TO USE PRIVATE LAND FOR REINDEER GRAZING WERE EXCESSIVELY LONG   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants are four Swedish Sami villages: Handölsdalen, Mittådalen, Tåssåsen and Ruvhten Sijte (formerly Tännäs), all situated in the municipality of Härjedalen in northern Sweden. The case concerned the domestic proceedings about the disputed right of the Sami, inhabitants of the northern parts of Scandinavia and the Kola Peninsula, to use private land in Härjedalen for winter grazing of their reindeer.   In 1990 a large number of Härjedalen landowners brought proceedings against five villages, including the applicants, seeking to obtain a judgment forbidding them from using land without concluding a contract with the respective owner. In November 1991, the Sami villages contested the action, claiming in particular that they had the right to winter grazing within their respective areas based on prescription from time immemorial and custom as well as the relevant provisions of domestic law concerning reindeer grazing and reindeer husbandry. Between 1992 and 1995 the parties presented large amounts of material in support of their respective claims and made numerous submissions on the substance and on procedural issues. During the proceedings two similar actions brought by further landowners were joined to the case. The three joined cases eventually comprised property belonging to more than 500 persons.   In February 1996, the district court found against the applicants, holding in particular that over the centuries the land in question had not been continuously used for reindeer winter grazing over a sufficiently long period to establish a right for the Sami to such grazing without a valid contract. The court ordered the applicants to pay the landowners’ legal costs, amounting to approximately 400,000   euros. The applicants appealed. After numerous submissions from the parties, a number of decisions on procedural issues and the withdrawal of some of the landowners, the court of appeal upheld the district court’s judgment in February 2002 and ordered the applicants to pay the landowners’ legal costs in the appeal proceedings, amounting to approximately 290,000   euros. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court, which in April   2004 refused their leave to appeal.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicants complained that, given the high costs of the proceedings for which they did not receive legal aid, they had not had an effective access to court and that the proceedings had been excessively long.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29   October   2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President, Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Ann Power (Ireland), judges,   and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Regarding the question whether the applicants had had effective access to court, the Court first noted that the proceedings concerned an issue of considerable importance to the applicants. Further, the case had been very complex, as domestic legislation on reindeer husbandry left it to the courts to determine which pieces of land may be used for reindeer winter grazing where there was a dispute over this question.   The Court did not find, however, that the domestic courts had handled the issue of legal costs unreasonably. The applicant villages were legal entities with a certain number of members, therefore their situation was not comparable to that of an individual litigant. They had been represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings and had made numerous submissions. There was no indication that they had been unable to present their case properly. The judgments at issue had been pronounced following adversarial proceedings in which the district court and the court of appeal had held lengthy oral hearings. The Court therefore concluded, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §1 with regard to effective access to court.   Concerning the applicants’ complaint about the length of proceedings, the Court considered that the case had come before three levels of jurisdiction. It had involved the examination of extensive evidence on winter grazing during several centuries on a large area of land and it had had more than 500 parties, thus it had been of great complexity. Moreover some of the delays had been attributable to the parties, as they had made extensive submissions and procedural motions. The Court nevertheless found that the overall duration of about 13 years and 7 months indicated that the domestic courts had not conducted the proceedings expeditiously enough. Moreover, there had been unnecessary delays, in particular before the Supreme Court, which took more than a year to decide a procedural question, during which time the proceedings before the court of appeal were adjourned, and about two years to make its final decision in the case. The Court therefore unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 with regard to the length of the proceedings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 14,000   euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.