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

A Swedish state-owned energy company agreed to sell coal-fired plants and mining assets to a Czech holding company. Environmental NGOs, such as PUSH Sverige and Fältbiologerna, as well as individual plaintiffs, challenged the sale as violating the Government's duty of care to protect their citizens' right to a non-harmful climate. They argued that the sale would result in excess emissions, which Sweden had committed to avoiding.

Background
In 2016, the Swedish Ministry of Industry announced the approval of a request from Vattenfall, a state-owned energy company, to sell lignite coal assets in Germany to a Czech risk capitalist company, Czech Energetický a Průmyslový Holding (EPH) and PPF Investment (PPF). The deal would result in the release of 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2, and lignite coal is the most harmful of coal types. PUSH Sweden and Fältbiologerna (Nature and Youth Sweden), two youth NGOs, joined with 176 in a call for Sweden to reverse the sale. The claimants filed suit against the Swedish government in September 2017. The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that Sweden failed its duty of care with the sale and that the sale is illegal since Sweden had committed to staying below the amount of CO2 that would result from the sale, as well as the Paris Agreement's climate stipulations. Additionally, the plaintiffs requested the court to order the disclosure of the environmental review done ahead of the decision. Sweden, as part of the European Convention on Human Rights, is bound by Article 8 which guarantees against and requires impact assessment of environmentally harmful industrial activities. The Swedish constitution also states, "The public authorities shall promote sustainable development leading to a good environment for present and future generations".

Relevant Law and Principles

 * European Convention on Human Rights
 * Article 8
 * Paris Agreement
 * Swedish Constitution

Status
The case was dismissed after the Stokholm District Court determined that the plaintiffs had not experienced an injury from the government's decisions.

Takeaways
The case shows the hardship of holding governments accountable for their climate decisions and financing of the fossil fuel industry. This case is very similar to that of the Urgenda decision, with constituents asking the government to stop the financing of industries with high emissions. The Court's ruling that the plaintiffs did not experience injuries also reveals how many domestic judiciaries don't recognize how climate change harms everyone, whether or not actual injury is perceived.

Links

 * Push Sweden
 * Push Sweden UNFCCC Talanoa Dialogue Submission
 * Fältbiologerna (Nature and Youth Sweden)
 * Statement from one of the Plaintiffs