CASE OF SAARIVUOMA SAMI VILLAGE v. NORWAY

CASE OF SAARIVUOMA SAMI VILLAGE v. NORWAY

Application No: 2381/22

Articles: 35, 35-3-a, P1-1, P1-1-1, P1-1-2

Respondent state: NOR

Date: 2026-03-03

Conclusion:

Remainder inadmissible (Art.

35) Admissibility criteria; (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded; No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions; Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)

Subject classification: Bakirdzi and E.C. v. Hungary, nos. 49636/14 and 65678/14, §§ 49 and 50, 10 November 2022; Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 112, 13 December 2016; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 143, ECHR 2012; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 74, ECHR 1999-III; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 91, ECHR 2010; G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 292-93, 28 June 2018; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 46, ECHR 1999-V; Kopytok v. Russia, no. 48812/09, § 34, 15 January 2019; NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 28470/12, § 245, 5 April 2022; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 88, 14 September 2010; Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, no. 75909/01, § 109, 20 January 2009; The J. Paul Getty Trust and Others v. Italy, no. 35271/19, § 297, 2 May 2024; Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 96-97, 25 October 2012