The population of Karasjok is not collective owner of the land in the municipality

In 2006, the Finnmark Estate acquired all real estates in Finnmark to which the State previously held the registered title. The Finnmark Estate is a landowner body for the entire population of Finnmark whose task is to manage the renewable resources in its areas in accordance with the rules of the Finnmark Act. In this Act, special rights in these areas are conferred on the residents of the individual municipalities and in the entire county. All others are given access to certain resources. The Finnmark Estate is bound by the guidelines issued by the Sameting – the Sami parliament – on changes in the use of non-cultivated land.

The Finnmark Act states that the Finnmark Commission shall investigate rights of use and ownership to land transferred to the Finnmark Estate. The case in the Supreme Court concerned the survey for Karasjok municipality.

Two groups of parties claimed collective ownership to all unregistered land in Karasjok municipality, totalling more than 5,300 km2 (98.3 percent of the municipality’s area). One group held that ownership collectively belongs to the municipality’s population. The other group held that ownership belongs to the Sami part of this population.

The Finnmark Estate’s view was that the local population does not have a right of ownership.

Both the Finnmark Commission and the Finnmark Land Tribunal – each with a 3–2 opinion – concluded that the entire population in Karasjok municipality is the collective owner, and therefore that the area should no longer be managed by the Finnmark Estate.

Both the Finnmark Estate and the group arguing that ownership belongs to the Sami part of the Karasjok population appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case as a grand chamber with eleven justices. The parties agreed that the residents, regardless of the outcome of the Finnmark Estate’s appeal, have rights of use, independently acquired, to their traditional harvesting areas, and that the reindeer herders have rights of use, also independently acquired, to their traditional pasture areas.

A majority of six Supreme Court justices concluded that the population of Karasjok is not the collective owner of the land in the municipality.

The majority believed that the State became the owner of the disputed area after it became part of Norway in 1751. The local population, on the other hand, had rights of use to their harvesting areas. This partial conclusion builds on the perceptions of the King, which were applicable rules at the time, and the economic development in the 1700s century with the transition from a hunting society to nomadic reindeer herding and the beginning of more permanent settlement.  

The next question was whether the population, from the latter half of the 1700s, as new customs were established, acquired ownership through immemorial use. The legal basis requires a complex assessment, where the central issue is whether the local population over a long period has managed the area as if they were owners.

The Supreme Court's majority answered no to this question, emphasising the lack of signs of collective use of the entire disputed area. The population’s use has been rooted in the individual settlements and reindeer siidas. The local Sami customs did consequently not justify that the entire population collectively has acquired ownership to the entire disputed area.  

The ILO Convention No. 169 on indigenous people did not lead to a different result. The Convention is not applicable as Norwegian law, and in the Supreme Court's view, it does not require recognition of ownership for anyone other than those who have used the individual areas as owners. The judgment does not address whether village communities, siidas or others in Karasjok have acquired ownership to smaller areas of the municipality.  

A minority of five justices found that the entire local population in Karasjok municipality has collective ownership to the disputed area. The minority believed that the population has collectively controlled the area in such a way that the conditions for acquisition through immemorial use are met. The minority also had a different view on the content and significance of the ILO Convention.  

Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (PDF)

Areas of law: Property law, indigenuous rights, the Finnmark Act 

Key paragraphs: 180–189, 198–200, 203–205

Justices: Øie, Indreberg, Normann, Bull, Bergsjø, Ringnes, Arntzen, Falch, Bergh, Steinsvik og Hellerslia