Sweden’s Supreme Court has dismissed a climate change lawsuit led by Greta Thunberg and hundreds of young activists, citing the court’s inability to enforce legislative changes.
At a Glance
- Sweden’s Supreme Court rejected a class action lawsuit against the state by 300 young people, including Greta Thunberg
- The lawsuit demanded action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within feasible limits
- The court stated it cannot mandate specific actions from political bodies
- The decision suggests future climate cases could be considered if filed by associations rather than individuals
- Aurora, the group behind the lawsuit, plans to continue efforts to hold the Swedish state accountable
Court Dismisses Youth-Led Climate Lawsuit
In a significant legal development, Sweden’s Supreme Court has thrown out a class action lawsuit initiated by climate activist Greta Thunberg and nearly 300 other young people.
Too bad!
The lawsuit, which was the first of its kind in Sweden, targeted the government for its alleged inaction on climate change and demanded more stringent emission restrictions.
“The Supreme Court has now concluded that the case cannot be taken up for review,” Sweden’s Supreme Court said.
The court’s decision highlights the complex relationship between judicial power and political decision-making in matters of climate policy. The ruling emphasized that the court’s role does not extend to enforcing specific legislative changes, which fall under the purview of elected officials.
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscored the separation of powers within the Swedish government. In its statement, the court clarified its position on climate-related policy decisions.
“The political bodies decide independently which specific climate measures Sweden should take,” Sweden’s Supreme Court said.
This declaration reaffirms that while the court can interpret and apply laws, it cannot dictate specific climate measures to be implemented by the government. The decision respects the autonomy of political institutions in shaping Sweden’s approach to combating climate change.
Future Prospects for Climate Litigation
Despite dismissing the current case, the court’s decision may have opened a potential avenue for future climate-related lawsuits. The ruling suggested that if a climate case were filed differently, particularly by an association rather than individuals, it might meet the criteria for court consideration.
This nuance in the court’s decision aligns with practices at the European Court of Human Rights, which allows associations meeting certain criteria to bring climate lawsuits. The Swedish case, filed by an individual with others joining, faced higher admissibility requirements than a case potentially brought by an association.
The court’s stance on this matter could influence future legal strategies for climate activists and organizations seeking to hold governments accountable through the judicial system.
Despite the setback, the group behind the lawsuit, Aurora, remains determined to pursue their cause.
Unfortunately.
“Aurora will definitely continue fighting to prevent planetary collapses and to hold the Swedish state accountable for their illegal fueling of the climate crisis,” Ida Edling said.
Don’t go thinking this is the last we’ve heard from Greta. It’s not!
