The validity of an administrative decision on an upper reindeer population

Justices: Møse, Bergsjø, Høgetveit Berg, Thyness, Steinsvik

A reindeer grazing district had, in accordance with section 60 subsection 4 of the Reindeer Husbandry Act, laid down rules of use stipulating an upper number of reindeer per unit of a siida. For several of the siida units, this implied that they had to reduce their reindeer population. After discussing the preparatory works, the Supreme Court's majority of three justices found like the Court of Appeal that section 60 subsection 4 did not authorise the reindeer grazing district to make a binding majority decision stipulating an upper number of reindeer per siida unit as a means to reduce the reindeer population. Section 60 subsection 3 had to be regarded as exhaustive with regard to the right to make a unilateral and binding decision on reindeer population reduction. The minority of two justices found that the decision was valid and not in contravention of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Beyond the scope of the appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously found that section 12 of the Courts of Justice Act did not warrant a Court of Appeal sitting with a land court judge in this case. But since the case dealt with interpretation of the law, which meant that the Supreme Court had full jurisdiction to hear it, it seemed unnecessary and unfortunate in terms of proceedings costs to set aside the Court of Appeal's judgment. The error was thus not given effect, see section 29-20 subsection 3 second sentence of the Dispute Act. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment, that had set aside the grazing district's administrative decision, was dismissed. Dissenting votes 3-2.