Key Takeaways:

• Sweden's Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit by Greta Thunberg and 300 young activists demanding state action on climate change.
• The court stated that it cannot mandate government action regarding specific climate measures, as those decisions fall under political bodies.
• The lawsuit, initiated by an individual from the Aurora group, faced high legal thresholds due to its characterization as a private claim rather than a public interest case.
• While the court dismissed this lawsuit, it hinted that a differently framed case might be considered in the future.
• Other European courts have previously ruled in favor of climate actions against state inaction, setting a precedent for future cases.

On February 19, 2025, Sweden's Supreme Court dismissed a landmark climate lawsuit filed by Greta Thunberg and a group of 300 young activists known as Aurora. The lawsuit accused the Swedish state of failing to take adequate measures against climate change, which the plaintiffs argued violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court asserted, "A court cannot decide that the Riksdag (parliament) or the government must take any specific action," emphasizing that the determination of climate measures rests solely with political institutions, as reported by Reuters and The Local.

The plaintiffs sought to compel Sweden to limit greenhouse gas emissions to levels deemed "technically and economically feasible." However, the court's decision pointed out the stringent requirements for individual claims, noting, "Individuals only have the right to judicial review if the state's failure has had sufficiently imminent and certain effects on their individual rights." This is indicative of a broader reluctance in legal systems to allow private individuals to sue for public interest claims related to climate change, as echoed in previous rulings across Europe, including significant cases in the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did leave the door open for future legal actions, suggesting that a case framed differently—potentially by an association with requisite representativeness—could be considered valid for review. An Aurora representative stated, "Aurora will definitely continue fighting to prevent planetary collapses," hinting at a strategic reevaluation in their approach to hold the Swedish state accountable for its climate policies. Summary insights into the ruling can also be found at Le Monde.