Case Law Database
MEV & others v Finland
| Date of Decision: | Mon, 07 Oct 2024 |
|---|---|
| Decision Making Body: | United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child |
| Law Applied: | Convention on the Rights of the Child United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child |
| Keywords: | Indigenous rights, The right to be heard |
| Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf) |
MEV & others v Finland
Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, concerning communication No. 172/2022.
Geneva (10 October 2024) - Finland violated the rights of Sámi Indigenous people to culture and land, by granting mineral exploration permits on their territory without an impact assessment or an adequate participation process, two UN Committees have found.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) today published their decisions after reviewing three complaints filed by different members of the Kova-Labba Siida Sámi semi-nomadic herding community -including three children- dealing with mining projects granted on their traditional territory.
Two of the cases are related to the granting of a mineral exploration permit on the complainants’ traditional territory, and a third one concerned the granting of a reservation area on their lands, all of which happened without an impact assessment or a process of effective participation in the decision making.
The victims brought their cases to the committees in 2021 and 2022 seeking to establish the responsibility of the State party to fulfil its commitments under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights found that the State party’s failure to give legal recognition to the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their traditional lands, which are also the base for their livelihood and income, had the effect of nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by Indigenous Peoples, on an equal footing, of their rights to their traditional territories and natural resources.
“Finland needs to initiate the process of legal recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their traditional lands, including through collective ownership, which can ensure the realisation of their right to self-determination,” said the CESCR.
The three children in the case brought to Committee on the Rights of the Child are sisters aged 13, 15 and 16, and members of a multigenerational Sámi reindeer herding family. They alleged that the mineral exploration works would cause unpredictable adverse consequences for the continuity of their culture, limiting their ability to benefit from the transmission of Sámi culture and livelihood.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child recalled that Indigenous children in particular, must be at the heart of such process, from their consideration in impact assessments to their effective participation in processes of free, prior and informed consent. The Committee found that the approval of the exploration permits without such process violated the children’s rights to enjoy their own culture and amounted to intersectional discrimination against the authors as Indigenous children.
“The preservation of the cultural identity of Indigenous children is crucial, as they represent the continuity of their distinct people. States must promote Indigenous children’s consultation on all matters affecting them, including issues concerning their traditional territories and environment,” said the CRC.
The Committees asked Finland to provide the complainants with effective reparation for the violations suffered, including through an effective review of the decisions concerning the mineral exploration project, based on an adequate process of free, prior and informed consent, accompanied by an independent assessment of the impact on the rights of the Sámi people.
The CRC decision can be found here
The CESCR decision can be found here
Summary provided courtesy of OHCHR press release:
Court filed documents:
CRC decision
CESCR decision
Related CRC articles
- 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
- 8. Right to identity, name, nationality (CRC Article 8)
- 12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
- 27. Right to an adequate standard of living (CRC Article 27)
- 30. Right to minority culture, language, religion (CRC Article 30)
- 43. Procedural CRC provisions (CRC Articles 43-54)
- CRC Optional Protocols
Application / complaint:
Decision:
See cited rights.
Cited CRC articles
- 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
- 8. Right to identity, name, nationality (CRC Article 8)
- 12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
- 27. Right to an adequate standard of living (CRC Article 27)
- 30. Right to minority culture, language, religion (CRC Article 30)
- 43. Procedural CRC provisions (CRC Articles 43-54)
- CRC Optional Protocols
Complaint:
The complainants rely on articles 2.1, 8, 24, 27 and 30, and General Comment No. 15, paragraphs 2, 5, 7 and 50.
“On their right not to be discriminated against, the authors submit that their status as children members of the Sámi People, together with the persistent denial of their right to their traditional lands, makes them subject to substantial, indirect and systematic discrimination in respect of the unilateral power of the State party to conduct (Geological Survey Agency), authorize (Safety and Chemicals Agency) and uphold (the Courts) mineral exploration works in their traditional territory without the free, prior and informed consent of their community.”
Decision:
The CRC Committee finds a violation of article 8 (right to identity); article 30 (the right to minority culture); read in conjunction with article 2.1 and article 12.
“The preservation of the cultural identity of Indigenous children is crucial, as they represent the continuity of their distinct people. States must promote Indigenous children’s consultation on all matters affecting them, including issues concerning their traditional territories and environment.”
In the separate opinion of Ann Skelton she emphasises article 12:
“I would not have relied as heavily on the international standard of free, prior and informed consent. I would have centred the reasoning on article 12, the right of children to express their views and have their views be given due weight. I would have found that the granting of the permit violated the authors’ rights under article 12 read alone and in conjunction with articles 2.1, 8, 27 and 30 of the Convention.”
“Their views should be proactively sought, and may be received through creative means.”
Involvement of children in hearings
- Written presentation
Intergenerational rights
Application / complaint:
The authors emphasise that the right of an Indigenous child to the transmission, from generation to generation, of an Indigenous identity, way of life and traditional economic activity, constitutes a core dimension of the rights of Indigenous Children (described in par 2.15 of the decision).
“According to the authors, taking into account the intergenerational nature of Indigenous peoples’ right to transmit their culture to new generations, it is precisely because a chain of cultural transmission is interfered with much earlier than an Indigenous culture is destroyed (through action or inaction), that the admissibility conditions of victimhood and substantiation are met already at the point of time when such interference with cultural transmission occurs.” par 5.5.
Decision:
“9.14 The Committee also recalls that the integrity and durability of culture depend on having in times to come the conditions for the own ways of life, 28 that cultural rights have an intergenerational aspect which is fundamental to the cultural identity, survival, and viability of Indigenous Peoples.”
In the individual opinion of Ann Skelton:
“3. The Maastricht Principles on the Rights of Future Generations,4 locates this special affinity in the recognition that children are ‘proximate to future generations’,5 which makes children ‘closest in time to generations still to come and thus occupy a unique position, and have an important role to play, within this transition to long-term, multigenerational thinking. Accordingly, their perspectives and participation in decision-making with respect to long-term and intergenerational risks must be accorded special weight’.”
Future generations
Application / complaint:
At 2.16 decision: “The authors also submit that their actions before the Supreme Administrative Court also included testimonies on the threats to reindeer herding that affect the youth’s perception of their possibilities to continue in reindeer herding, as well as on the significant importance that reindeer herding has on how traditional knowledge is maintained and protected for future generations.”
Decision:
At 9.2 “The Committee takes note of the authors’ argument that all those elements (culture, language, identity and livelihood) are strongly dependent on traditional reindeer herding and that reindeer herding has significant importance on how traditional knowledge is maintained and protected for future generations”.
In the individual opinion of Ann Skelton:
“This in turn raises an interesting point about the special affinity between children and future
generations. While children who are alive today should not alone bear the burden of advocating for future generations,1 they have, in recent years, taken up this responsibility, including in a communication brought to this Committee under the third optional protocol. The Pact for the Future, in the final stage of development as these Views are adopted, recognizes that children are ‘critical agents of positive change’ and declares that States will ‘invest in and promote engagement by young people at national and international levels’.
“We therefore need to pay particular attention to the obligation of States Parties to ensure children’s right to express their views, and have them given due weight, particularly in relation to decisions pertaining to the environment and the preservation of the environment for future generations.”
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Relief sought by applicants granted
The CRC Committee finds a violation of articles 8, 27, and 30, read with article 2 and 12.
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- Yes
This is the first case in which a state is directed to conduct a child rights impact assessment as set out in the General comment no 26.
Prof Skelton’s individual opinion clarifies that children, especially Indigenous children, views should be proactively sought, and may be received through creative means.
Available information on how children got involved in the litigation
Age range of litigants
- 13-17
Number of children or youth involved
3