6.  The applicants were born in 1922 and 1951 respectively and live mainly in Esbo. The first applicant owns a secondary residence in the municipality of Lumparland on the Åland Islands. 7.  The secondary property is also used by the second applicant, who is her son and only heir. According to the applicants, they use the property for holiday purposes as well as renting it to tourists and for business meetings. There is a dog yard on the neighbouring property.
1st examination 8.  In the summer of 1991 the applicants applied to the then South Åland Municipal Health Board (“the Health Board”; Södra Ålands hälsonämnd), requesting that the owners of the neighbouring property (“the neighbours”) be ordered to move the dog yard away from their common boundary on the grounds that the noise gave rise to a private nuisance. On 12 September 1991 the Health Board decided not to take measures as it considered that no private nuisance existed. 9.  On 17 October 1991 the applicants appealed. The then Åland Provincial Administrative Court (Ålands länsrätt) received the Health Board’s statement and the neighbours’ reply to the appeal on 18 November 1991. It received the applicants’ rejoinder on 30 January 1992. On 14 May 1992 the court upheld the Health Board’s decision. 10.  On 23 June 1992 the applicants appealed further. The Supreme Administrative Court (högsta förvaltningsdomstolen, korkein hallinto-oikeus) received the Health Board’s statement and the neighbours’ reply to the appeal on 14 August 1992 and 15 September 1992 respectively. Meanwhile, on 23 July 1992 the applicants submitted additional information to the court and on 20 November 1992 they filed a rejoinder. On 11 March 1993 the court invited a statement from the building inspector (byggnadsinspektören) of Lumparland. It was received on 28 April 1993. The applicants filed their comments including an expert opinion on 30 April 1993. On 24 June 1993 the court, finding that the dogs’ barking amounted to a private nuisance such that the neighbours were under an obligation to put right or limit the disturbance, sent the case back to the Health Board.
2nd examination 11.  On 9 September 1993 the Health Board ordered the neighbours to provide the dog yard with walls made out of sound-absorbing material and to build an exercise yard to be used by puppy litters during the summer season. The decision did not indicate a time-limit for the required measures. 12.  On 2 November 1993 the applicants appealed, primarily requesting that the neighbours be ordered to move the dog yard. They also considered the measures ordered by the Health Board insufficient and requested the court to indicate a time-limit for the measures. The same day the Provincial Administrative Court invited the Health Board’s statement, which was received on 2 December 1993. On 28 January 1994 it invited the applicants’ rejoinder, which was received on 14 February 1994. On 10 June 1994 the court, finding that the measures ordered by the Health Board were insufficient and that a time-limit should be set for the neighbours’ compliance with the order, sent the case back to the Health Board. 13.  On 5 July 1994 the neighbours appealed. The next day the Supreme Administrative Court invited the applicants’ reply to the appeal, which was received on 2 September 1994. On 5 September 1994 it invited the Health Board’s statement, which was received on 5 October 1994. The next day it invited the neighbours’ comments, which were received on 3 November 1994. On 7 April 1995 the court rejected the appeal.
3rd examination 14.  It appears that the Health Board held an inspection in situ on 22 June 1995. According to the applicants, they had not been informed and did not therefore attend. It appears that no minutes were drawn up. According to the Government, it transpires from the Health Board’s minutes, apparently those from the subsequent hearing on 24 August 1995, that two families who were renting the applicants’ cottages at the time of the inspection stated that they had not heard any barking. There was also an entry according to which there was no longer any dog yard, only an outdoor place for two dogs. According to the Government, the second applicant stated that the dogs did not cause any health hazard at the time. 15.  On 31 July 1995 representatives for the Health Board sought legal advice from an official, who drew the Health Board’s attention to the fact that it must act in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Provincial Administrative Court in the matter. However, on 24 August 1995 the Health Board decided not to take any measures as it considered that there was no private nuisance. 16.  On 22 September 1995 the applicants appealed. On 6 February 1996 the Åland Provincial Government (Ålands landskapsstyrelse), finding that the file disclosed no such circumstances as could justify departing from the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision of 24 June 1993, sent the case back to the Health Board. 17.  On 27 March 1996 the neighbours appealed. The next day the Supreme Administrative Court invited the Åland Provincial Government’s statement and the applicants’ reply to the appeal, which were received on 10 May 1996 and 15 April 1996 respectively. On 14 May 1996 it invited the neighbours’ rejoinder, which was received on 31 May 1996. 18.  Meanwhile, on 11 April 1996, also the applicants appealed against the Provincial Government’s decision, arguing that a member of the Health Board (“M”) had been disqualified from deciding their case. They also requested that the neighbours be ordered to move the dog yard to the other side of their house. On 19 February 1997 the court invited the neighbours’ reply to the appeal, which was received on 4 March 1997. The same day it invited the Provincial Government’s statement, which was received on 1 April 1997. On 23 April 1997 it invited the applicants’ rejoinder, which was received on 22 May 1997. On 19 November 1997 the court rejected the appeals.
4th examination 19.  On 22 January 1998 the Health Board found the construction of walls sufficient to reduce the noise caused by barking from the dog yard. 20.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed. On 23 December 1999 the Provincial Government sent the case back to the Health Board to be reconsidered in accordance with the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision of 19 November 1997.
5th examination 21.  On 27 January 2000 the Health Board once again decided to take no measures. 22.  On 28 February 2000 the applicants requested a rectification. On 13 April 2000 the Health Board rejected their request. 23.  On 22 May 2000 the applicants appealed, referring to an expert opinion on noise recommendations and arguing that a member of the Health Board (“A”) had been disqualified from deciding their case. They also drew the appellate court’s attention to the fact that the neighbours had taken no measures whatsoever and that the Health Board had not acted in accordance with the judicial decisions of the higher bodies. On 23 May 2000 the Åland Administrative Court (Ålands förvaltningsdomstol) invited the Health Board’s statement, which was received on 22 June 2000. On 17 July 2000 it received the applicants’ rejoinder. On 10 August 2000 the court invited the neighbours’ reply to the appeal, which was received on 24 August 2000. In January 2002 the first applicant requested that the proceedings be speeded up. It appears that she received no reply. About a year later, on 13 January 2003 the court invited the applicants’ rejoinder, which was received on 28 March 2003. On 7 May 2003 it held an inspection in situ and on 28 May 2003 an oral hearing. 24.  On 30 June 2003 the Administrative Court, finding that the Health Board was under an obligation to take measures with a view to putting right the disturbance suffered by the applicants, sent the case back to the Health Board. It also ordered that the Health Board pay the applicants’ legal costs in part. Lastly, the court drew the Health Board’s attention to section 85(2) of the Provincial Act on Health Care (landskapslagen (Act no. 1967:36) om hälsovården) according to which the Health Board could order that its decision should be executed despite an appeal. 25.  The second applicant appealed further as far as the legal costs were concerned, but the appeal was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court on 16 March 2004.
6th examination 26.  On 14 August 2003 the Health Board ordered the neighbours to supplement the noise prevention measures by 1 December 2003. On 25 September 2003 the Health Board rectified its decision insofar as it ordered the neighbours to obtain the Municipal Building Board’s (byggnadsnämnden) prior approval. 27.  According to the applicants, in August 2003 they informed the heads of the administrative authorities of the Åland Islands of the problem in their organisation as regards the Health Board. However, they received no reply. 28.  On 4 November 2003 the applicants appealed, arguing that the dog yard should be moved to the other side of the property and that the walls and the roof should be reinforced with sound-absorbing material etc. The next day the Administrative Court invited the Health Board’s statement, which was received on 21 and supplemented on 29 January 2004. The court received the applicants’ rejoinder on 11 February 2004. On 17 February 2004 it invited the neighbours’ comments, which were received on 2 March 2004. On 16 March 2004 it invited the applicants’ rejoinder, which was received on 26 March 2004. On 27 April 2004 the Administrative Court, finding that the measures ordered by the Health Board were insufficient and that the Health Board was under an obligation to give adequate instructions as to the measures required to put an end to the private nuisance, sent the case back to the Health Board. It also ordered that the Health Board pay the applicant’s legal costs in part.
7th examination 29.  In his proposal to the Health Board the official reporting on the case considered that the existing dog yard should not be used and recommended that the dogs should be kept on the south side of the house. He considered that the dogs should be moved by 30 July 2004. However, by its decision of 10 June 2004 the Health Board overruled the official’s proposal and accepted the neighbours’ proposal to rebuild the wall. The official reporting on the case issued a dissenting opinion. On 2 July 2004 the applicants applied for a rectification. 30.  On 16 July 2004 the European Court of Human Rights decided that notice of the present application should be given to the Government of Finland. 31.  At this point the Health Board decided to rectify its decision. Accordingly, in its decision of 12 August 2004 it found that a drawing submitted by the applicants made it clear that the neighbours’ proposal to rebuild the wall would not prevent the dogs’ barking from reaching the applicants’ property. The Health Board ordered that the existing dog yard should not be used and recommended that the dogs should be kept on the south side of the house. This was basically what the applicants had been requesting since the lodging of their application in 1991. However, the Health Board indicated a time-limit of over nine months by which the measures should be taken. 32.  Following the session of 12 August 2004, the Chairman of the Health Board, B.S., was interviewed by a local newspaper about the case. According to the applicants, B.S. implied that the applicants were the trouble makers in the present case. The applicants considered that the statement rendered the Health Board’s impartiality open to doubt. 33.  On 6 September 2004 the neighbours appealed. On 14 September 2004 also the applicants appealed, requesting that the court specify where the dog yard should be moved and that the decision should be enforced immediately, i.e. despite an appeal. They also argued that B.S. had been biased when deciding their case. 34.  On 26 January 2005 the Administrative Court, finding that the above statement by B.S. rendered her impartiality opened to doubt, sent the case back to the Health Board and ordered it to issue adequate instructions. It also ordered the Health Board to pay the parties’ legal costs. 35.  On 24 February 2005 the Health Board decided to lodge an appeal against the Administrative Court’s decision insofar as it had found that the impartiality of B.S. was open to doubt. 36.  On 12 January 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court, finding that the Health Board had not lodged its appeal with a view to securing any public interest, dismissed it without considering its merits.
8th examination 37.  On 7 February 2006 the European Court of Human Rights declared the present application partly admissible. 38.  The Health Board examined the case in its sessions of 9 March and 13 April 2006. On 26 April 2006 it gave a decision, issuing the neighbours with instructions. The Health Board ordered that the existing dog yard should not be used. It also ordered that the prohibition would take effect 60 days from the date on which the decision gained legal force. Should the neighbours decide to keep dogs on the property thereafter, they had to build new dog yards that would limit the public health hazard such as the noise from dogs barking so that it did not exceed the equivalent threshold values of 55 db (A) between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and 45 db (A) from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Should the neighbours choose to keep dogs outside on the property, the new dog yards had to be ready within 60 days from the date on which the decision gained legal force. 39.  On 15 June 2006 the Health Board rejected the parties’ rectification requests. 40.  The applicants appealed, arguing that C.H. and R.L. had been biased when deciding their case. They requested that the decision be supplemented and clarified with an instruction on noise isolation and that the decision should be enforced immediately. Also the neighbours appealed. 41.  On 27 February 2007 the Administrative Court rejected the appeals. It is not known whether anyone appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.