Posti and Rahko v Finland: ECHR 24 Sep 2002

Hudoc Two fishermen who operated under leases granted by the Finnish state complained that restrictions imposed by the government to safeguard fish stocks had failed to strike a fair balance under A1P1. The court held that the fishing restrictions were a control, rather than deprivation of property, and that the interference was justified and proportionate; the interference ‘did not completely extinguish the applicants’ right to fish salmon and saltwater trout in the relevant waters’, and they had received compensation for losses suffered

27824/95, [2002] ECHR 634, (2003) 37 EHRR 6
Worldi, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A1P1
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedA and B, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health SC 14-Jun-2017
The court was asked: ‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, the respondent, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled . .
JudgmentPosti and Rahko v Finland ECHR 3-Dec-2009
Execution of the judgment . .
CitedMott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency SC 14-Feb-2018
The Court considered the legality under the European Convention on Human Rights of licensing conditions imposed by the Environment Agency restricting certain forms of salmon-fishing in the Severn Estuary. The claimant operated a licensed putcher . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.177166