Posti and Rahko v Finland - 27824/95 [2009] ECHR 2220 (3 December 2009)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the lack of access to court to contest restrictions on fishing imposed by administrative regulations (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Finland's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

The case concerns an infringement of the applicants' right of access to a court in that they could not challenge before a court the lawfulness of decrees issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 1996 and 1998 (based on the 1982 Fishing Act) restricting certain fishing rights leased from the state for the period 1995-1999 (violation of Article 6§1). In 1991, the Supreme Administrative Court, seised by the second applicant with an appeal against a similar decree, stated that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the merits of such a complaint.

The European Court found that where a decree, decision or other measure, albeit not formally addressed to any individual natural or legal person, in substance affects the “civil rights” or “obligations” of such a person or of a group of persons in a similar situation, whether by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention may require that the substance of the decision or measure in question is capable of being challenged by that person or group before a “tribunal” meeting the requirements of that provision.

Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the European Court found that the interference with the applicants' property rights was justified, being lawful and pursuing, by means proportionate to this aim, the legitimate general interest in protecting the fish stocks, not least as the administrative authorities had granted the applicants compensation for the loss suffered.

Given that neither the Finnish authorities nor the European Court found a violation of the applicants' property rights, the need to reopen the domestic proceedings does not seem to arise. In addition, the applicants have not engaged any new court action.

The Finnish authorities have indicated that in all likelihood, courts will take into account the case-law of the European Court when deciding which statutes may be subject to appeal.

The judgment of the European Court was published in the Finlex database. A summary of the judgment in Finnish was published in the same database. The judgment was sent out to the relevant national authorities, including the Supreme Administrative Court, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

The government considers that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2009 at the 1072nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	16000 EUR	5765 EUR	21765 EUR
Paid on 26/08/2003

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Posti and Rahko v Finland - 27824/95 [2009] ECHR 2220 (3 December 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/2220.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 2220