Aurora is suing Sweden for its lack of climate action

Due to climate change, today’s young people will experience, among other things, heatwaves and extreme fire risks to a much greater extent over the course of their lives compared to older generations. And Sweden’s climate targets are set too low. In addition, the climate policy being pursued is not effective enough to achieve the goals.

This is what the climate group Aurora writes in the lawsuit against the Swedish state, which is now being filed with the Stockholm District Court.

– The Swedish one The state is obliged to protect our human rights to life, health, well-being and quality of life. This emerges from the European Convention, which has a special position in the Swedish constitution, says Ida Edling, lawyer and spokeswoman for the Aurora climate group.

– Now we want the court to determine whether the Swedish state violated the law or not, that is, whether it violated our human rights or not.

The core of Aurora’s argument is that the Swedish state does not take responsibility for its share of the global climate action that must be implemented to limit global warming in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

– International law clearly states that states like Sweden, which are rich and have contributed the most to the climate crisis with their large historical emissions, must do absolutely the most, says Ida Edling.

For example mean the group said Sweden must have a plan to reduce emissions caused by goods imported from other countries.

– These emissions are greater than our own territorial emissions, and even if they are officially reported in other countries, the state must do everything to reduce them because they are caused by our lifestyle. According to international law, all countries must use all the means at their disposal to ensure that the climate crisis does not lead to climate collapse, says Ida Edling.

This is the second time that Aurora has sued the Swedish state for inadequate climate policy. The previous lawsuit was filed in 2022 and ultimately ended up at the Supreme Court, which concluded that the application did not formally meet the criteria required for trial under Swedish law. For example, the lawsuit was filed as a so-called class action lawsuit. This time it is the Aurora association that acts as the sender instead.

Furthermore, have Things happened in the legal field that may have changed the game in Aurora’s favor. In April 2024, a landmark ruling came from the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg, which found that Switzerland had violated human rights by not taking sufficient measures to combat climate change. It was a group of older women, the “climate seniors,” who had sued the state.

And in July 2025, the International Court of Justice in The Hague announced that all states have an obligation to effectively combat climate change and protect the human rights of current and future generations, regardless of whether they are part of the Paris Agreement or not.

“Against this background, it is very difficult for me to imagine that this time Aurora will not be given the right to speak and bring this trial against the state to a conclusion,” says Jonas Ebbesson, professor of environmental law at Stockholm University.

What would it mean if Aurora wins – if the court upholds the lawsuit?

– The point is not that the court can order the state to take certain measures, but rather that it can determine that what is being done is not enough and in what respects it is defective. Then every serious democratic government and every serious parliament must of course take the matter seriously and do what is necessary to prevent violations of the law. Otherwise it would be a clear disregard for the court, which is not compatible with the rule of law, says Jonas Ebbesson.

He adds that the European Court of Justice has ruled that states have great freedom to act independently. However, a clear national regulatory framework is needed for the gradual phase-out of climate emissions.

– And it’s not enough to have a nice set of rules on paper, they also have to be implemented. It can be noted there that, for example, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Climate Policy Council have reported deficiencies in the Swedish state’s climate work.

A criticism In connection with such events, one often hears that climate policy should not be regulated in court, but in the Reichstag. Ida Edling thinks this is a misunderstanding.

– The only thing we ask the court to do is to determine whether the Swedish state has violated the law or not. This is exactly what a court in a democratic constitutional state should do. And one of the absolutely most important aspects of Swedish democracy and the rule of law is that politicians have to follow their own laws. It’s in the first paragraph of the constitution, says Ida Edling.