The Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) has ruled not to take up a high-profile lawsuit filed by approximately 300 young activists from the Aurora group (Auroramålet). The case—initiated in 2022 by youth ranging in age from 7 to 26 and including renowned climate activist Greta Thunberg—alleged that the state’s insufficient measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions violate their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Background of the Aurora case
The Aurora case was launched by a group of young individuals who argued that the Swedish State had failed to do its “fair share” in combating climate change. The activists claimed that the government’s inaction infringed on their fundamental rights. As Aurora spokesperson Ida Edling emphasized during the early stages of the case,
“It is incredibly urgent because the climate crisis is incredibly urgent.”
Notably, the lawsuit was not brought forward by an established association but by a private individual representing a group of affected citizens—a factor that set an exceptionally high threshold for the claim.
The Supreme Court’s decision
The Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) announced its decision to decline the case. The court maintained that judicial bodies cannot compel the Government or Riksdagen (Swedish Parliament) to implement specific climate measures—a stance rooted in the principle of separation of powers. In its press release, the court stated:
“Individuals only have the right to judicial review if the state’s inaction has caused sufficiently imminent and certain effects on their individual rights.”
This ruling means that the fundamental question of whether the state’s climate policies breach individual human rights will not be addressed through judicial intervention.
International and legal context
The decision comes on the heels of a separate ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (Europadomstolen), which recently found Switzerland liable for insufficient climate measures. In that case, the European Court criticized Swiss courts for not adequately considering scientific evidence on climate change—a landmark decision in the realm of climate litigation. Although the circumstances differ, the Swiss ruling has intensified the debate over the role of courts in enforcing state climate action.
Reactions and Implications
Legal experts view the Supreme Court’s decision as a reaffirmation of the limits of judicial power when it comes to directing public policy. While the ruling underscores that courts cannot force governments to act on climate change, it also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by activists attempting to use the judicial system to secure robust climate action.
For the Aurora activists, the decision is a significant setback. Critics argue that by refusing to hear the case, the court sidesteps an urgent issue that directly affects future generations. Nonetheless, the ruling reinforces a longstanding judicial principle: individual lawsuits must demonstrate that State inaction has caused direct, immediate harm to personal rights—a criterion the court found unmet in this instance.
