Nine things you need to know about the Girjasm target

1) Do the Sami villagers own the land?

No. Girja's Sami village has never claimed this in this case either. It was also stated in the so-called Skattefjäll target in 1981 that it is the state that owns the land.

2) Is it not always the landowner who also has the hunting rights?

Usually it is. But with regard to the Sami's unique right to reindeer husbandry, the right of all members of the Sami village also includes hunting and fishing in the Sami village area. So far everyone agrees. The question is whether the Sami village alone owns the rights, or whether the state also has rights. This leads to the core question of who should have the right to administer hunting and fishing.

3) Why do you talk so much about historical circumstances in the trials?

The Sami village wants to prove that the rights to hunting and fishing rest on the claim of ancient memory, that is, without competition from others and with the good memory of the state, the land has been used for a very long time, and in addition paid taxes for it. According to Sami village lawyers, it gives rights to hunting and fishing of a "private law nature".

4) Why is it so complicated that a legal process should take ten years?

It is precisely because so many historical events can be understood in such different ways. Was it supposed that the Sami would act as owners of the land when they paid taxes on the income? Was it intended that the Sami villagers themselves would take care of the granting of hunting rights when they were better organized? Were the county councils only meant to act as the Sami villagers' representatives? These are just examples of disputed issues.

5) Where does the free small game hunt come into the picture?

Before it was introduced in 1993, the Sami villagers were asked by the county administrative board about how the small game hunt would go. Much smaller areas were searched and priority was given to the local population's opportunities in those areas. From 1993, basically all state land was opened above the cultivation limit for all Swedish hunters, and from 2007 also hunters from the rest of the EU. The Sami villages saw all this as a violation of their rights, which led to Girjas being selected to pursue a judicial process as a pilot case.

6) Can't just the politicians decide how it should be?

One can say that the politicians have tried, among other things, by adding several investigations during the 2000s. But the investigations' proposals have obviously not been politically feasible. It has also been argued during the trials that this should really be a political issue.

7) What happens if the Sami village wins?

It would put pressure on the politicians to give the same rights to Sami villages in the mountain area as this is operated as a pilot case. But the goal for Girjas is not to go back to the system that was before 1993. The idea is that the Sami village itself will handle the lease of the hunt and not the county administrative board. According to the Sami village, there is still no concrete plan for what it should look like in practice, more than one has promised a system that will also be better for other local hunters.

8) What happens if the state wins?

Then, according to today's system, the Sami village is allowed to pay court costs of somewhere between SEK 20-30 million.

9) Is there any way in between?

Yes, the High Court gave the Sami village the right to have a greater hunting right than the state and that the state does not have the right to grant the hunt. It can be seen as a principled victory for the Sami village. But it also stated that today's system does not contravene the law, which leaves many questions to the authorities if that judgment is established in the Supreme Court.