Swedish climate advocacy group Aurora has filed a second lawsuit against the Swedish state, arguing that the government’s current climate policies are insufficient to meet its legal obligations under national and international law. The case, submitted to the Nacka District Court near Stockholm, marks a renewed attempt to force judicial scrutiny of Sweden’s emissions trajectory after a previous suit filed in 2022 was declined by the courts.
Aurora, an organization led by young activists, first sued the state in November 2022. That case sought a court declaration that Sweden’s climate policy violated the European Convention on Human Rights and the Swedish Instrument of Government. However, the Stockholm District Court and later the Court of Appeal declined to hear the substance of the case, ruling that the matter was too political for judicial review and fell within the discretion of the parliament and government.
The new lawsuit takes a different legal approach. Rather than asking the court to assess broad policy adequacy, Aurora is targeting specific decisions — particularly the government’s 2024 climate report and its decision not to strengthen near-term emissions targets. The group argues these concrete administrative decisions are reviewable by courts and that they lock in an emissions path incompatible with Sweden’s fair share of the global carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C.
Sweden has a legally binding Climate Act, in force since 2018, which requires the government to present a climate report annually and a climate policy action plan every four years. The country has pledged to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 and achieve negative emissions thereafter. Intermediate targets include cutting domestic emissions by at least 63% by 2030 and 75% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels, with supplementary measures allowed for a portion of the reductions.
According to the Swedish Climate Policy Council — an independent body tasked with evaluating government policy — current measures are not on track to meet the 2030 target. In its 2024 assessment, the Council stated that the gap between projected emissions and the target remains significant, and that recent policy changes, including reduced fuel taxes and weakened incentives for electric vehicles, have widened that gap. Aurora cites these findings as evidence that the state is failing its own legal commitments.
This lawsuit is part of a growing wave of climate litigation worldwide, where courts are increasingly asked to define the boundary between political discretion and legal duty. In 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a ruling in Urgenda v. Netherlands ordering the government to cut emissions more aggressively. In 2021, Germany’s Constitutional Court ruled that the state’s climate law violated the freedoms of young people by postponing the burden of emissions cuts to the future. More recently, the European Court of Human Rights found in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland that inadequate climate policy can breach human rights.
If the Swedish court agrees to hear Aurora’s case on its merits, it could set a precedent for judicial oversight of climate policy in Sweden. A ruling that specific government decisions are unlawful would compel the state to revise its climate report or adopt stronger measures — potentially affecting energy pricing, transport policy, and industrial regulation.
For residents, the outcome could influence the cost of driving, heating homes, and buying goods. Stronger climate policies might mean higher fuel taxes, stricter vehicle standards, or faster phase-outs of fossil heating — but also expanded public transit, cheaper renewable electricity, and new green jobs. Conversely, if the court again declines jurisdiction, the political branches retain full control over the pace of transition, with accountability limited to elections.
Aurora’s case is expected to proceed through 2025. Regardless of the verdict, it underscores a shifting dynamic: climate policy is no longer just a matter for parliament — it is increasingly contested in courtrooms, with young plaintiffs arguing that today’s decisions determine their constitutional rights tomorrow.
Image: Photo: John De Leon · Pexels
Based on reporting from sverigesradio.se.
Cookies & Privacy: This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Read more.
