Sweden / Supreme Court of Sweden / Ö 7177-23
-
Sweden / Supreme Court of Sweden / Ö 7177-23
Key facts of the case:
A.F., brought a group action before the District Court against the State of Sweden, later examined by the Supreme Court. A.F. sought a declaratory judgment that the State had violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) by failing to take its fair share of global measures to reduce greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. By failing to act, the State allegedly exposed A.F. to foreseeable negative effects of human-induced climate change, thereby infringing their fundamental rights. A.F. invoked Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the ECHR, as well as the corresponding rights in the EU Charter.
The case concerned whether an individual could bring an action before Swedish courts against the State alleging that insufficient measures to counter climate change violated rights under the ECHR, particularly in light of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment of 9 April 2024 in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 53600/20. The Supreme Court had to determine whether Swedish procedural law allows such a claim and whether the alleged omissions could amount to a breach of fundamental rights, including those protected by the EU Charter if the situation were found to fall within the scope of EU law.
Key legal question raised by the court:
The Supreme Court examined whether Sweden’s climate policy fell within the scope of EU law, thereby triggering the application of the EU Charter under Article 51(1). The Court was asked to decide if the State’s alleged failure to meet emission-reduction targets breached Charter rights.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Court found that the action was inadmissible under Swedish procedural law. It held that neither an individual claimant nor an association could bring a general action (actio popularis) against the State’s overall climate policy in civil proceedings. As no specific legal obligation or individual right could be identified, the claim was dismissed without a substantive examination.
In assessing the legal question, the Supreme Court noted that the alleged omissions concerned Sweden’s general climate policy and therefore did not constitute implementation of EU law. Referring expressly to Article 51(1) of the EU Charter, it concluded that the Charter was not applicable to the case. The Court nevertheless acknowledged the importance of environmental protection as a constitutional and international obligation but found no procedural basis to review the State’s policy choices.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
81. AF's action is based essentially on the infringement by the Swedish State of his rights under the ECHR. However, he has also argued that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applies. Yet the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is addressed to Member States only when they apply Union law. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not apply outside this area, and does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Justice of the European Union. (See Article 51(1) of the Charter, Article 267 TFEU and, e.g., Court of Justice of the European Union Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, EU:C:2013:105 paras. 17–22.)
82. Although AF has made certain references to general provisions of the Treaty on European Union – regarding the Union promoting a high level of environmental protection and on the division of competences between the Union and the Member States in the field of the environment – no question of the application of EU law arises in the examination of the question referred to the Supreme Court.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
81. AFs talan grundar sig huvudsakligen på att den svenska staten gjort sig skyldig till en kränkning av hans rättigheter enligt Europakonventionen. Men han har också gjort gällande att EU:s rättighetsstadga är tillämplig. Rättighetsstadgan riktar sig dock till medlemsstaterna endast när de tillämpar unionsrätten. Stadgan är inte tillämplig utanför detta område och grundar där inte heller någon behörighet för EU-domstolen. (Se artikel 51.1 i stadgan, artikel 267 FEUF och t.ex. EU-domstolens dom Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, EU:C:2013:105 p. 17–22.)
82. Även om AF gjort vissa hänvisningar till allmänna bestämmelser i EU-fördraget – om att unionen ska verka för en hög miljöskyddsnivå samt om kompetensfördelningen mellan unionen och medlemsstaterna på miljöområdet – uppkommer inte någon fråga om tillämpning av unionsrätten vid prövningen av den fråga som hänskjutits till Högsta domstolen.