The Sámi won the fishing dispute in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Finland has dismissed charges in two cases concerning the right of local Sámi people to fish in the Utsjoki and Vetsijoki rivers, which are part of the Teno River water system in Lapland. The Supreme Court thus upheld the decisions issued by the Lapland District Court. Attorney Markku Fredman served as legal representative for the Sámi people in question in the Supreme Court, pictured familiarizing himself with the "crime scene" at Vetsijoki.

In one case, the prosecutor demanded that a local Sámi person be punished for a fishing offense. The man had fished for salmon with a gill net in Utsjoki outside the permitted fishing season in August 2017. Fishing at that time in August was contrary to the Government Decree then in force, which concerned fishing in the tributaries of the Teno River water system.

The Supreme Court held that the provision of the decree in force at the time of the act concerning the fishing season was in conflict with the rights guaranteed to local Sámi people in the Constitution. The provision of the decree was set aside pursuant to the Constitution, and the charge of fishing offense was dismissed.

"Local Sámi people had thus been placed in the same position as all other fishers, such as fishing tourists, with regard to obtaining permits. The limited nature of the permits and the high demand for permits had led to the permits being sold out very soon after their sale began."

In the second case, the prosecutor demanded that four local Sámi people be punished for unlawful hunting. They had fished with lures and spinners in state waters in Vetsijoki without a permit from Metsähallitus (Finnish Forest Administration).

The Supreme Court held that the separate fishing permit required under the Fishing Act for salmon and trout spawning areas in force at the time of the act in 2017, along with the related permit practices, caused such significant restrictions on local Sámi people that the application of the provision would be in manifest conflict with the rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution. The provision of the Fishing Act was likewise set aside pursuant to the Constitution, and the charge of unlawful hunting was dismissed.

"The Supreme Court notes that the provision of Section 10(2) of the Fishing Act is clear in its wording. The wording does not allow for a fundamental rights-friendly interpretation whereby local Sámi people would have the right to fish in salmon or trout spawning areas without a separate fishing permit granted by Metsähallitus."

"The Supreme Court notes that the fishing right belonging to local Sámi people and protected by the Constitution is not, however, unlimited, but the fishing right of the Sámi can also be restricted based on the environmental fundamental right in Section 20 of the Constitution to safeguard migratory fish stocks."

"The provision of Section 10(2) of the Fishing Act, with its permit practices, has substantially restricted the practice of fishing that is part of Sámi indigenous culture."

"45. The Supreme Court concludes that, taking into account the requirement for a separate fishing permit under Section 10(2) of the Fishing Act (379/2015), together with the conditions attached to it and the actual restrictions caused by the application of the provision on the cultural fundamental rights of the Sámi, the application of the provision would in this case be in manifest conflict, within the meaning of Section 106 of the Constitution, with the fundamental right protected in Section 17(3) of the Constitution. The provision concerning the fishing permit in force at the time of the act is set aside."

The cases were processed in the Supreme Court as appeals for precedent decisions, through which the prosecutor sought changes to the district court decisions directly from the Supreme Court instead of from the Court of Appeal.