Swedish Sami reindeer herders' access to grazing land in Norway
Supreme Court judgment and order 30 June 2021, HR-2021-1429-A, (case no. 20-164328SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
Saarivuoma sameby (Counsel Knut Helge Hurum and Ann Johnsen) v. The State represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Statskog SF (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Henrik Vaaler) (Assisting counsel Anders Blakstvedt)
Justice: Webster, Falkanger, Noer, Bergh, Østensen Berglund
A Swedish Sami village claimed towards the State that they had a right to engage in reindeer husbandry in two areas near Altevann in Bardu and Måselv municipalities, contrary to what was set out in the Cross-Border Reindeer Husbandry Act of 9 June 1972 with pertaining Regulations. Four of the Supreme Court's justices found that the Sami village had private-law rights in the areas, acquired by immemorial use. Two of these justices found that the control of reindeer husbandry in these areas had to cease if a court ruled that it prevented the exercise of private rights, but that the Regulations prevailed over these rights until such a ruling was present. The same fraction also found that damages could not be awarded to the Sami village based on either negligence or expropriation law principles. Two justices found that the Sami village had a right to engage in reindeer husbandry in the disputed areas despite the wording in the Act and pertaining Regulations. These justices also found that the control extended beyond what the authorities could normally exercise in the form of restricting a right of use, and that the Sami village was entitled to damages provided that the claim was not time-barred under section 2, cf. section 3, of the Limitation of Claims Act. One justice found that there was a basis in the Cross-Border Reindeer Husbandry Act for continuing the current regulation of the grazing areas, that one could not determine the relationship with the State without considering other Sami groups that had not been heard in the case, and that there was no basis for awarding damages.