The Swedish Supreme Court has declared climate activist Greta Thunberg’s legal action against the state on climate change as inadmissible. Thunberg, alongside 600 other activists, lodged the class action lawsuit in 2022, asserting that the government’s insufficient action on climate change breached the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to a press release from the Swedish Supreme Court, the case underwent a multi-stage assessment.
Initially, the court scrutinized precedents from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and evaluated the Instrument of Government to delineate the boundaries between judicial tasks and political decision-making. It then assessed whether climate change action conformed to Swedish procedural rules, ultimately concluding that ruling on executive and legislative responsibilities regarding climate change exceeded judicial authority.
The Supreme Court underscored that such climate change litigation often involves broad judicial review of a state’s climate policies rather than solely focusing on the impact on specific individuals. This broad scope raises constitutional issues concerning the separation of powers in Sweden. Consequently, the lawsuit was deemed inadmissible because it was not filed by an association, a requisite for such general actions.
This legal attempt draws parallels to recent ECtHR cases, which have set new precedents in climate litigation. The ECtHR rulings against Switzerland, France, and Portugal on similar grounds produced mixed outcomes; notably, in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, Switzerland was found partially responsible under ECHR Article 6§1 and Article 8 for failing to act effectively against climate change.
The Swedish court refrained from stating how it might respond should a future challenge by an association arise, leaving open the possibility for different avenues of legal recourse in Swedish courts. The decision reflects the ongoing tensions between legal frameworks and environmental advocacy, underscoring challenges in bridging environmental responsibilities with juridical competencies as observed in recent jurisprudence.
For further details on the Swedish Supreme Court’s ruling, visit the original article on Jurist.