Sweden's Supreme Court Quashes Youth Climate Suit

A climate lawsuit brought by youth activists in Sweden against their national government will not move forward, after Sweden’s Supreme Court ruled that the case is inadmissible.

On February 19, the Swedish Supreme Court ruled that the young people’s case challenging the adequacy of Sweden’s climate policies was not viable. The court cited separation of powers concerns – that courts cannot order political branches to take specific actions – and the fact that the lawsuit was brought by individuals rather than a group or association, as reasons for its decision.

This is the first time Sweden’s highest court has ruled on a climate case, and the decision is undoubtedly a setback for the youth activists. Hundreds of them, including famed climate activist Greta Thunberg, had joined the case, filed in late 2022 as a class action on behalf of all Swedish youth. They alleged that the Swedish government’s insufficient measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions constitute violations of their fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. For remedy, the youth plaintiffs sought a court order for the government to implement its fair share of emissions reductions aligned with limiting warming to below 1.5°C and to adopt measures to ensure continual emissions reductions and removals through carbon sinks.

According to Aurora, the youth-led climate justice group behind the lawsuit, government officials “have set climate targets that exclude the majority of our emissions and which are far from ambitious enough for Sweden to do its fair share of the global emission reductions required to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. The targets also fail to protect vital ecosystems. And the inadequate climate targets are not even being met.”

The case was referred to the Supreme Court from the district court on the admissibility question. Last year the Supreme Court announced it would take up the case. Aurora said the court’s decision “will be crucial for people's ability to hold Swedish people in power accountable for broken climate promises and human rights-violating climate policy.”

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the case, at least in its current formulation, could not advance in Swedish courts. The court did not, however, rule out that a different case – brought by an association that asks merely for a declaration of rights violations – could be viable.

“The court has not taken a position on how the issue would be assessed if the claim were brought by an association and if the claim was limited to requesting a declaration that the state had violated their rights under the European Convention by failing to take sufficient measures to counteract the effects of climate change,” Jonas Malmberg, one of the Supreme Court judges in the case, said in a statement.  

In its decision, the court relied upon the holding of the European Court of Human Rights in its historic KlimaSeniorinnen ruling of April 2024, which found that the Swiss government’s insufficient climate policies violated the European human rights convention and that the association of elder women suing the state had grounds to bring claims on behalf of its members. An association may be able to overcome the heightened standing requirements that apply to individuals bringing climate cases, since individuals would need to show that they are specifically or uniquely harmed, according to the court.

However, the Supreme Court said that even an action brought by a group may be barred if it seeks to compel the state to adopt particular measures. “The interest in maintaining the division of responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches, on the one hand, and the courts, on the other, may justify restrictions on the right to such an action. This means, among other things, that an action that seeks the adoption of laws or other regulations by the state does not need to be permitted,” the court explains in a press release accompanying its ruling.

The Swedish climate case is part of a wave of lawsuits that climate litigation scholars term “government framework cases,” which challenge countries’ climate targets and policies. Some of these cases have already resulted in significant wins for climate activists. Courts in Belgium and the Netherlands have ruled that their governments must reduce emissions by a certain level, while courts in Germany, France, and Ireland have determined that governments must formulate more ambitious climate measures.

In a press release, Aurora noted that the Supreme Court’s decision does not evaluate their case on the merits, meaning the court did not determine whether Sweden’s inadequate climate breaches human rights law. The group argues it does and says there must be accountability.

“We have to analyze the decision more closely, but respect for our right to access to courts is crucial for people’s ability to hold those in power accountable for broken climate promises. The planetary crises demand drastic, immediate, just changes to all systems of society – it will not do if those in power get to break the law unquestioned,” Aurora’s Ida Edling said.

“Aurora's fight for climate justice is far from over,” added Aurora’s Gertrud Wrange. “If all actors in society do not act to fundamentally change our economic systems, a climate collapse awaits. We can’t afford to give up.”