PUSH Sweden, Nature and Youth Sweden and Others v. Government of Sweden

Date of Decision:	Thu, 11 May 2023
Decision Making Body:	Stockholm District Court
Law Applied:	Constitution of Sweden
Keywords:	National resource extraction

PUSH Sweden, Nature and Youth Sweden and Others v. Government of Sweden 

(PUSH Sverige, Fältbiologerna och andra v. Sverige regering) 

2764-22 and 2765-22 

At Issue: State-owned firm’s sale of coal and coal-burning assets to subsidiary of Czech holding company 

Summary: Vattenfall, an energy firm in which the Swedish government owns a controlling stake, agreed to sell several coal-fired power plants and associated mining assets to the German subsidiary of a Czech holding company. The sale was prompted in part by an environmental review that recommended Swedish divestment from fossil assets. Environmental NGOs and individual plaintiffs challenged the sale as a violation of the Swedish government’s duty of care to its citizens to protect their right to a non-harmful climate. The plaintiffs’ petition grounds this duty in the Swedish Constitution and Sweden’s adoption of several international agreements—the petition thus resembles submission made in the recent Urgenda decision in the Netherlands. The petition argued that the sale would enable the expanded exploitation of lignite coal assets, resulting in emissions in excess of limits that correspond to climate stability. It further noted that Sweden committed to act to avoid breaching those limits. On this basis, the plaintiffs asked the court to declare that 1) the Swedish state has breached its duty of care with the sale, and 2) the sale is illegal. The plaintiffs have also asked the court to order publication of the environmental review conducted in advance of the sale, which the government has so far withheld. 

The court denied these requests after determining that the plaintiffs had not experienced an injury from the governmental decisions at issue. 

PUSH Sweden, Nature and Youth Sweden and Others v. Government of Sweden - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com) 

Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre 

 

Court documents: 

Summons (unofficial translation) 

Ruling 

 

Related CRC articles

• 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
• 12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
• 16. Right to privacy, family, home, communications and reputation (CRC Article 16)
• 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)

Summons: 

Par 89. In the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are found equivalent rights in Article 2 on the right to life and Article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life, and the European Social Charter Article 11 on the right to health. 

Par 119. Regarding environmental organizations’ right of standing, it should be assessed similarly to that of individuals. Environmental organizations can represent the public interest in situations where no individual can be considered directly affected, and for this reason a liberal assessment of the rules on standing is justified. The organizations who act as plaintiffs in this case represent mainly children and young citizens, with no autonomous standing. These young people also stand explicitly as holders of rights to a healthy environment under the Instrument of Government § 2 and State’s 21 Generational Goal. It would not be consistent with the spirit or word of the law for these citizens to be denied the opportunity to also try their rights before the court.

Involvement of children in hearings

• Written presentation

Future generations

Par 14. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own need. 

Par 88. The Swedish Protection of Human Rights are primarily found in the Constitution. The section on the environment can be found in Chapter 1, § 2: "The public authorities shall promote sustainable development leading to a good environment for present and future generations." 

Par 108. By allowing Vattenfall to complete the sale, the State has acted in a way that does not meet the requirements that can reasonably be attributed to its duty of care to Sweden’s inhabitants and to the rights of future generations regarding environment, health and property. 

Outcome of decision for the applicants

• Relief sought by applicants NOT granted

Application was dismissed upon finding that the applicants had not suffered injury.  

Did outcome of decision develop the law

• No

Involvement of NGO/law firm in application

Nonprofit Organisations:

PUSH Sverige (1st plaintiff) 

Fältbiologerna (2nd plaintiff) - An independent youth association.  

 

Legal representatives: 

B. Jan Palmblad

Lawyer Pia Björstrand 

Available information on how children got involved in the litigation

Fältbiologerna  

Age range of litigants

• 0-7
• 8-12
• 13-17
• 18-25