FEBRUARY 19, 2025
The Swedish Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that climate activist Greta Thunberg’s legal challenge against the state for insufficient climate action is inadmissible.
According to the Supreme Court press release, the case was assessed in stages. The Supreme Court first analyzed the precedents provided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The court also reviewed the Instrument of Government, to “assess how the constitutional boundary should be drawn between the tasks of the ordinary courts and the decision-making of the political bodies.” Finally, the court considered whether climate change action falls within “the framework of the Swedish procedural rules,” and finally assessed the admissibility of the case.
The court ultimately ruled that it was beyond its scope of powers to decide that parliament and the government must take certain steps and action to prevent climate change, opting to maintain the independence of decision-making bodies from the courts. The court said:
The Supreme Court notes that such an action regarding climate change on which the European Court of Human Rights has ruled concerns the repercussions of a changed climate in general- not just the effects on certain individuals – and involves a judicial review of the state’s actions in the climate area. Such a general action regarding climate change against the state therefore brings to the fore the constitutional boundary between the tasks of the ordinary courts and the decision-making of the political bodies.
It was made clear that the action here was brought by “a person acting on behalf of individuals.” Not being brought by an association, the action was declared inadmissible.
Thunberg and 600 other activists brought the class action lawsuit in 2022, arguing that the government must meet obligations to prevent climate crisis and that the District Court should “declare that the state has violated the Convention rights” of citizens by its failure to take action.
The lawsuit argued that Sweden’s failure to prevent or mitigate climate change was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular, due to a ECtHR judgements in 2024, which set a new precedent. The cases were brought against Switzerland, France and Portugal and related to alleged breaches of the ECHR, due to the states’ “inaction on climate change”. The cases against France and Portugal were found inadmissible, however, the court ruled partly in favor of the applicants in the Swiss case. In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland the court held that Switzerland had a responsibility under Article 6§1 and Article 8 of the ECHR to mitigate climate change effectively. Here the action was admitted providing for a precedent on the requirements an association needs to meet to bring forward such a climate action.
The Swedish Supreme Court did not take a position on how the court would rule should an action of this nature be brought by an association.
www.jurist.org
The Swedish Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that climate activist Greta Thunberg’s legal challenge against the state for insufficient climate action is inadmissible.
According to the Supreme Court press release, the case was assessed in stages. The Supreme Court first analyzed the precedents provided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The court also reviewed the Instrument of Government, to “assess how the constitutional boundary should be drawn between the tasks of the ordinary courts and the decision-making of the political bodies.” Finally, the court considered whether climate change action falls within “the framework of the Swedish procedural rules,” and finally assessed the admissibility of the case.
The court ultimately ruled that it was beyond its scope of powers to decide that parliament and the government must take certain steps and action to prevent climate change, opting to maintain the independence of decision-making bodies from the courts. The court said:
The Supreme Court notes that such an action regarding climate change on which the European Court of Human Rights has ruled concerns the repercussions of a changed climate in general- not just the effects on certain individuals – and involves a judicial review of the state’s actions in the climate area. Such a general action regarding climate change against the state therefore brings to the fore the constitutional boundary between the tasks of the ordinary courts and the decision-making of the political bodies.
It was made clear that the action here was brought by “a person acting on behalf of individuals.” Not being brought by an association, the action was declared inadmissible.
Thunberg and 600 other activists brought the class action lawsuit in 2022, arguing that the government must meet obligations to prevent climate crisis and that the District Court should “declare that the state has violated the Convention rights” of citizens by its failure to take action.
The lawsuit argued that Sweden’s failure to prevent or mitigate climate change was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular, due to a ECtHR judgements in 2024, which set a new precedent. The cases were brought against Switzerland, France and Portugal and related to alleged breaches of the ECHR, due to the states’ “inaction on climate change”. The cases against France and Portugal were found inadmissible, however, the court ruled partly in favor of the applicants in the Swiss case. In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland the court held that Switzerland had a responsibility under Article 6§1 and Article 8 of the ECHR to mitigate climate change effectively. Here the action was admitted providing for a precedent on the requirements an association needs to meet to bring forward such a climate action.
The Swedish Supreme Court did not take a position on how the court would rule should an action of this nature be brought by an association.
Sweden Supreme Court rules Greta Thunberg lawsuit on climate action inadmissible
The Swedish Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that climate activist Greta Thunberg's legal challenge against the state for insufficient climate action is inadmissible. According to the Supreme Court pr...
www.jurist.org
